Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has restrained Rupa Publications from publishing or selling its ‘coat pocket’ edition of the Constitution of India bare act in a trademark infringement suit filed by Eastern Book Company (EBC). Justice Arora found the impugned edition’s trade dress to be deceptively similar to EBC’s “iconic” red-and-black style coat-pocket edition launched in 2009. Exercising powers under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court also directed Rupa to withdraw unsold copies and remove online listings, holding that the imitation risked misleading consumers and harming EBC’s goodwill.

The plaintiffs, Eastern Publishing Pvt. Ltd. and Eastern Book Company Pvt. Ltd., collectively known as EBC Publishing, instituted the suit seeking permanent injunction against Rupa Publications India Private Limited for passing off their flagship coat-pocket edition of the bare acts of the Constitution of India. The plaintiffs argued that their edition, in use since 2009, carries a distinctive trade dress consisting of a signature black-red color combination, specific font style, gold leafing, and design elements on thin bible paper. They submitted that this product, deliberately coined as “coat pocket” edition, had become one of their most iconic and successful publications, recognized by legal professionals and the public alike.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad High Court Order | Says Trial Court Cannot Take Cognizance of Robbery Charge Solely on Witness Affidavits

The plaintiffs submitted that they had invested heavily in advertising, incurring expenses exceeding Rs. 75 lakhs, and had sold more than 1,04,805 copies since 2010. They contended that the goodwill acquired was evidenced by recognition from judges, lawyers, politicians, and general citizens. The editions were marketed through multiple channels, including offline bookstores, third-party e-commerce platforms, and EBC’s own online store.

In November 2024, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendant was publishing and selling coat-pocket versions of the Constitution of India bare act through similar channels, including Amazon, Flipkart, and retail outlets. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s impugned editions bore striking similarity to their editions, copying essential features such as color scheme, title placement, font, and gold detailing. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had abandoned its usual red-white logo in favor of a golden logo placed at the bottom-right corner, thereby attempting to pass off its product as that of the plaintiffs. They contended that the defendant’s imitation extended to e-commerce listings, with layouts and presentations designed to mislead customers.

A cease-and-desist notice issued on 15 November 2024 was met with refusal by the defendant on 27 November 2024. Subsequently, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s acts led to cancellation of a confirmed order of 18,000 copies worth significant sums, after the defendant misrepresented its product as identical to the plaintiffs’ at cheaper prices. They submitted that such acts caused irreparable financial and reputational harm.

The plaintiffs filed multiple applications alongside the suit. They sought leave to file additional documents under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC, exemption from pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, and permission to file hard copies of the contested bare acts for examination by the Court. Summons were directed to be issued to the defendant, with the written statement required within thirty days.

The Court recorded that the defendant did not appear despite advance service of the paper-book. Upon comparing the plaintiffs’ coat-pocket editions with the defendant’s impugned editions, the Court stated: “it is prima facie evident that the impugned trade dress/design is deceptively similar to the trade dress adopted by the plaintiffs.” Justice Arora further observed: “The defendant has adopted a similar colour scheme, text and font, gilt edging, book posteen colour, and embossed gold detailing. Considering, that the plaintiffs and the defendant operate in the same line of business, utilize identical trade channels, and cater to the same class of customers, there exists a strong likelihood of confusion.”

The Court noted the tabular comparison submitted by the plaintiffs, which showed that the defendant had “entirely copied the layout of the plaintiff’s product without any independent creativity.” It observed that “to an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the trade dress of the defendant’s impugned coat-pocket editions is likely to appear identical to that of the plaintiffs’ coat-pocket editions.” Justice Arora held that such similarity could mislead consumers regarding the origin of the products.

The Court relied on Colgate Palmolive Company & Another v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1005, wherein it was held that while no party can monopolize a single color, a distinctive combination consistently used acquires recognition and goodwill. Quoting the precedent, the Court observed that “the substantial reproduction of such combinations in a similar order on packaging can cause confusion and dilute distinctiveness. Trade dress, which includes colour combination, layout, container shape, and overall design, enjoys strong protection against imitation.” Justice Arora further noted: “Even if minor differences exist in style, graphics, or textures, long-standing use in the market gives the product a secondary meaning and reinforces its reputation and goodwill.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Orders Release of Detained Gold Jewellery on Payment of Duty and Fine | After Court’s Directive, Customs Finalises Baggage Rules Amendments and Seeks Time for IT Upgrade

Justice Arora issued directions restraining the defendant “from manufacturing, publishing, marketing, soliciting orders, directly or indirectly selling/offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner, the plaintiffs’ flagship ‘coat pocket’ edition of the bare acts of the Constitution of India in a trade dress similar to that used by the plaintiffs in the iconic red and black style.” The defendant, its directors, employees, distributors, and agents were directed “to remove any/all and recall their unsold inventory of all the coat pocket edition of the Constitution of India from the market and remove their listings or listings of the third parties of the coat pocket version of the Constitution of India from all the e-commerce platforms.”

The Court mandated compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within two weeks. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar (J) on 20 November 2025 for service and pleadings, and before the Court on 25 February 2026.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Plaintiffs: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate; Ms. Swati Sukumar, Senior Advocate; with Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Ms. Garima Bajaj, Mr. Shagun Agarwal, Mr. Zeephan Ahmed, and Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi, Advocates.

Case Title: EBC Publishing (P) Ltd & Anr. v. Rupa Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1034/2025
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora