Pranav B Prem

The Delhi Commercial Court (Saket) has permanently restrained a Surat-based trader from using packaging and trade dress deceptively similar to L’Oréal S.A.’s cosmetic and personal care brand “Garnier” for its “Bright Complete Vitamin C Booster Serum.” The Court held that the imitation amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation. The order was passed by District Judge Savita Rao in a suit filed by L’Oréal S.A., seeking protection of its “Garnier Bright Complete” mark and its distinctive packaging design against imitation by Yetish Kantibhai Shekhada, who marketed his product as “Vedant Bright Complete Vitamin C Booster Serum.”

Also Read: ‘Carnatic’ Trademark Dispute: Delhi Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Bengaluru Restaurant, Awards Damages To Carnatic Café

Background

L’Oréal S.A., through its attorney Ms. Meena Bansal, filed the suit under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking permanent injunction, delivery up, and damages. The plaintiff stated that it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a wide range of beauty and personal care products under several well-known trademarks, including L’ORÉAL, MAYBELLINE, GARNIER, and MATRIX. The “GARNIER BRIGHT COMPLETE” brand, launched in 2020, was claimed to have attained widespread recognition due to its distinctive white, orange, black, golden, and green colour scheme, unique bottle shape, and design elements.

L’Oréal argued that its packaging constitutes a distinctive trade dress and artistic work protected under copyright law. The company submitted that the defendant’s product — “Vedant Bright Complete 30x Vitamin C Booster Serum” — was identical in packaging, label style, and colour combination, creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The plaintiff produced comparative photographs showing that the defendant’s packaging mirrored the bottle shape, orange highlight, and white-gold background, along with a similar font and layout. It contended that this imitation was deliberate, dishonest, and intended to mislead consumers into believing an association with Garnier.

Proceedings Before the Court

On October 18, 2024, the Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendant and his agents from using the impugned trade dress, label, or colour combination in any manner. The order was duly served on the defendant via email and WhatsApp. However, the defendant failed to appear, file a written statement, or contest the proceedings despite service. The Court, therefore, proceeded under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which empowers it to pronounce judgment when a defendant fails to file a written statement within the prescribed time.

Court’s Observations

Upon examining the plaintiff’s evidence, the Court found that the defendant’s packaging was confusingly similar to Garnier’s Bright Complete serum and likely to cause deception among the general public. The Court held: “Since the plaintiff has submitted on record and established by way of documentary submissions that the defendant has infringed the impugned trade dress, label, and colour combination of the plaintiff; passed off its goods as that of the plaintiff; and infringed the plaintiff’s copyright… Suffice it is, if the trade dress, label, or colour combination of the defendant is likely to cause confusion in the mind of the general public.”

Judge Rao noted that the plaintiff’s Garnier Bright Complete packaging had achieved distinctiveness through continuous commercial use and advertising, with celebrity endorsements and wide online presence. The Court observed that the defendant had replicated all major visual elements, including the colour palette, typography, and placement of key features, which amounted to blatant copying. Although the plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that the defendant had ceased use of the infringing packaging after the interim injunction, the Court held that his conduct justified an award of nominal damages to compensate for the infringement already committed.

Relief and Final Order

Making the interim injunction permanent, the Court restrained the defendant, his associates, and agents from:

1. Using any label, trade dress, or colour combination identical or deceptively similar to “Garnier Bright Complete Vitamin C Booster Serum” or any other Garnier products.

2. Passing off goods as those of the plaintiff or creating any association or affiliation with Garnier’s brand.

The Court also awarded ₹2,00,000 to the plaintiff, inclusive of damages and litigation costs, holding that while the infringement was established, the subsequent discontinuation of the infringing product warranted nominal compensation.

Also Read: Delhi Commercial Court Dismisses ‘ME’ Trademark Suit For Concealment Of Facts, Finds Defendant Prior User Of Mark

Holding that the defendant’s imitation of Garnier’s packaging and design was a clear case of trademark and copyright infringement, the Court permanently restrained him from using any deceptively similar trade dress. The order reaffirmed that copying a competitor’s trade dress or packaging design constitutes unfair competition and passing off under Indian trademark law, even if the infringer later ceases production.

Appearance

For Plaintiff: Advocate Shravan Bansal

Cause Title: L'Oreal S.A. v. Yetish Kantibhai Shekhada

Case No: CS (COMM) No. 478/2024

Coram: Savita Rao (District Judge)