The way consumers identify and differentiate products has changed significantly with the growth of competitive markets and modern branding strategies. Today, consumers do not rely only on brand names or logos while making purchasing decisions. The colour combinations, packaging style, arrangement of elements, design features, and overall visual presentation of a product often influence consumer perception and create a connection between the product and its source. This distinctive commercial appearance, known as trade dress, is an important aspect of intellectual property protection. However, the increasing recognition of trade dress has also created complex legal questions regarding the extent to which businesses can protect their product identity while ensuring that competition remains fair.
Trade dress protection primarily focuses on the overall appearance and impression of a product or its packaging rather than individual elements considered separately. In India, trade dress is generally protected through the principles of passing off under trademark law, where a claimant must establish goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of consumer confusion. Indian courts have increasingly acknowledged that packaging and product presentation can function as valuable indicators of origin when consumers associate a particular visual identity with a specific brand. At the same time, courts have maintained that protection cannot be granted merely because products share common features; the claimed trade dress must demonstrate distinctiveness and market recognition.
The Delhi High Court’s decision in GRM Foodkraft Pvt. Ltd. v. KS Agro Impex Pvt. Ltd. (decided May 29, 2026). represents an important development in understanding the scope of trade dress protection in India. The dispute concerned allegations that the defendant had adopted a packaging design that was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s rice product packaging. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had copied the overall appearance of its packaging, including the colour scheme, arrangement of elements, artistic features, and general visual presentation, thereby creating a likelihood of consumer confusion. The Defendant argued that its house mark is prominently displayed in multiple places on the packaging.
While examining the dispute, the Delhi High Court emphasised that trade dress must be assessed by considering the overall impression created by the packaging rather than by comparing isolated components individually. Further, the presence of the house mark does not in itself prevent deceptive similarity between the packaging. The Court recognised that ordinary consumers often identify products through their overall appearance and may not carefully examine every minor difference between competing products. Therefore, where the collective arrangement of colours, designs, layout, and presentation creates a distinctive identity associated with a particular brand, imitation of such features may amount to an infringement of trade dress rights.
The Court’s approach highlights the importance of consumer perception in trade dress disputes. A business does not acquire protection merely because it uses a particular colour or design element; rather, protection arises when the combination of those elements creates a unique commercial identity. The judgment reinforces that packaging can become an extension of a brand itself when continuous use, advertising, and consumer recognition transform it into a source identifier.
The Delhi High Court’s reasoning also reflects the growing recognition that unfair competition does not always occur through direct copying of trademarks. Competitors may attempt to benefit from another brand’s reputation by adopting similar visual features that create an association in the minds of consumers.
However, trade dress protection requires a careful balance. While businesses must be protected against imitation that misleads consumers, granting excessive protection over ordinary packaging elements could restrict legitimate competition. Common shapes, commonly used colours, or functional aspects of packaging cannot be monopolised merely because one business uses them extensively. Therefore, courts must distinguish between features that genuinely identify a brand and features that are necessary or commonly used within an industry.
The increasing commercial importance of trade dress is also visible in international developments. A significant example is the recent case between Van Leeuwen and Rebel ice creams in the United States, where a court awarded approximately $23.8 million in damages, demonstrating the substantial value attached to protecting distinctive product presentation and brand identity. The case reflects the recognition that trade dress is not merely an aesthetic feature but a valuable business asset that represents consumer trust, market reputation, and brand investment. This approach to trade dress by the United States has long recognised that businesses may protect the distinctive appearance of their products and packaging when consumers associate those features with a particular source. However, similar to the Indian position, protection depends on establishing that the claimed trade dress is distinctive, non-functional, and capable of identifying the origin of goods. The significant damages awarded in recent litigation demonstrate the serious commercial consequences of deliberately copying another brand’s established visual identity.
The developments in India and the United States indicate that trade dress is an increasingly important tool for businesses seeking to protect their market identity. In modern commerce, a product’s packaging is often the first point of interaction between a consumer and a brand. A distinctive package design can influence purchasing decisions, create brand loyalty, and become closely associated with the reputation of a business. Therefore, protecting such identity from imitation has become an essential part of intellectual property strategy.
The evolution of trade dress law reflects the changing nature of brand protection in modern markets. These decisions demonstrate that packaging can become a valuable commercial identifier deserving legal protection when it develops distinctiveness and consumer recognition. As businesses increasingly compete through visual identity and consumer experience, trade dress disputes are likely to become more common. The challenge for courts will remain in maintaining a balance between protecting genuine brand goodwill and preventing trade dress law from restricting fair competition. Ultimately, the future of trade dress protection will depend on ensuring that businesses are rewarded for creating distinctive identities while preserving space for innovation and market competition.
Written by
Shobhitha M
