In the case of Rasayanam Enterprises v. Upakarma Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Rasayanam Enterprises challenging an interim injunction order granted in favor of Upakarma Ayurveda. The dispute centered around allegations of trademark infringement and passing off related to the packaging of the product “Shilajit” marketed by both parties. Upakarma Ayurveda had earlier obtained an interim injunction restraining Rasayanam from using packaging that was deceptively similar to its own registered trademark “UPAKARMA AYURVEDA PURE SHILAJIT.”
The Single Judge had previously restrained Rasayanam from using its original packaging, which closely resembled Upakarma’s, and later held that the new 20 gm packaging adopted by Rasayanam continued to be deceptively similar, though the 10 gm packaging was not found to violate the injunction. Rasayanam argued that the background color similarity, which formed the basis of the injunction, was insufficient to justify the continued restraint, especially since neither party could claim exclusivity over a color.
However, the Court upheld the injunction, emphasizing that in cases of directly competitive products, even minor similarities in trade dress, including color schemes and overall presentation, could lead to consumer confusion. The Court applied the legal principle that the likelihood of confusion is determined by the overall impression of the packaging, not just individual elements, and that even slight differences may not dispel confusion if the general appearance remains similar.
The Court concluded that Rasayanam’s changes to the 20 gm packaging were insufficient to avoid confusion with Upakarma’s product, affirming the injunction. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court reiterating that the findings were preliminary and relevant to the interim relief stage.
Citation: Rasayanam Enterprises v. Upakarma Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd., FAO(OS)(COMM) 80/2024 (H.C. Delhi Sept. 18, 2024). Available on: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75365584/
Disclaimer
The case note in this blog post has been generated using Artificial Intelligence. The same has been reviewed by experts at BananaIP Counsels for correctness and authenticity. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
