Introduction

The skincare industry has witnessed exponential growth in recent years, leading to heightened competition and, consequently, an increase in legal disputes surrounding trademark and trade dress infringement. A significant case that encapsulates these issues is “Honasa Consumer Ltd. v. Cloud Wellness Pvt. Ltd. CS(COMM)439/2018 &CC970/2007, decided by the Delhi High Court on September 26, 2025. This judgment draws our attention to essential aspects of intellectual property rights, particularly involving trade dress and copyright laws. The case contrasts the established brand "The Derma Co," owned by Honasa Consumer Ltd., against the relatively newer brand "Dermatouch," developed by Cloud Wellness Pvt. Ltd. The crux of the dispute lies in whether Cloud's packaging can be deemed infringed upon by Honasa's recognized trade dress and whether the claims made by Honasa regarding the originality of their packaging design hold legal merit.

Procedural Posture of the Case

The case emerged when Honasa Consumer Ltd. initiated a suit for an interim injunction against Cloud Wellness Pvt. Ltd. under “Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC”, requesting the Court to restrain the defendants from using what Honasa claimed to be deceptively similar trade dress. The plaintiff’s claims were twofold: First, an allegation of copyright infringement in their established "Subject Trade Dress" used for the "The Derma Co" products, and second, a claim of passing off due to the necessity of preventing consumer confusion. The application was brought before the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia, who presided over the case. The decision rendered upon this application offers vital insights into the interplay of copyright laws and trade dress protections, crucial for brands in competitive sectors like skincare.

Material Facts

Background of the Parties: Honasa Consumer Limited is an Indian company that launched its brand "The Derma Co" in 2020, following a significant investment in branding and marketing. The brand is recognized for its distinctive two-tone trade dress involving a combination of colors—typically an upper band colored in shades like orange or blue, and a white lower band that bears the brand’s name.Cloud Wellness Pvt. Ltd., on the other hand, operates under the brand name "Dermatouch," marketing similar skincare products. The contention arose when Honasa accused Cloud of adopting a design very similar to its own, claiming it infringed on its copyrights and could mislead consumers.

The Allegations: Honasa asserted that the "Impugned Trade Dress" employed by Cloud for its skincare products mirrored critical aspects of its own trade dress. This encompassed elements such as color layout, proportions, and overall presentation. They believed such actions not only constituted copyright infringement but were also likely to mislead potential consumers, infringing upon their established brand identity and goodwill.

Preceding Communications: Prior to the lawsuit, Honasa issued a cease-and-desist notice, which went unheeded by Cloud Wellness. The refusal to comply further escalated the situation, leading to legal proceedings that sought urgent relief via an injunction.

Honasa's Claims and Legal Arguments

Copyright Infringement: Honasa anchored a significant portion of its claims on the premise that its Subject Trade Dress constituted an original artistic work as per ‘Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957’. The arguments presented included the following:

1. Originality of the Trade Dress: Honasa asserted that the design of its trade dress was developed through professional engagement with Lucid Design India Pvt. Ltd., thus establishing originality.

2. Distinctiveness and Secondary Meaning: The plaintiff argued that extensive marketing and consumer recognition associated with the Subject Trade Dress had resulted in secondary meaning. They posited that the trade dress functions as an identifier of source, distinguishing it in the marketplace.

3. Later Entry of Defendants: The Court was advised that Cloud, launching its products in 2021, adopted elements that closely mirrored Honasa’s established brand. The sequence of events demonstrated deliberate action to benefit from Honasa’s reputation.

Passing Off

Honasa also added a claim of passing off, asserting that Cloud's trade dress was likely to confuse consumers due to its similarity with that of "The Derma Co." The arguments stressed:

v  High likelihood of consumer confusion due to similar packaging aesthetics.

v  The need to look at trade dress as a whole rather than minor distinguishing features.

Cloud Wellness's Defense Arguments

Originality and Prior Use

Cloud's defenses centered around challenging the originality of Honasa's Subject Trade Dress based on claims of prior use. The arguments included:

1. Pre-existing Trade Dress: Cloud pointed to several skincare brands that had used similar color layouts in their packaging prior to Honasa's launch. This was bolstered by referencing brands like "Hylamide" and others that had maintained similar designs.

2. Lack of Distinctive Originality: Cloud argued that Honasa’s design was merely a rearrangement of existing trade dress layouts and did not possess the requisite originality defined under copyright laws.

Market Practices

Cloud further contended that the products in the skincare industry exhibit a commonality in layout due to the nature of consumer purchasing behaviors. This claim emphasized that products of this type often bear similarities due to market-driven aesthetics, thus making similarities in trade dress less indicative of infringement.

Court's Rationale and Judgment

In delivering the judgment, the Court examined the complex interplay between the arguments presented by both parties while evaluating the merits of the plaintiff's claim for an injunction. Key considerations included:

1. Analysis of Originality and Artistic Work: The Court had to consider whether the Subject Trade Dress qualified as an original artistic work under the Copyright Act. Evidence of distinctiveness and creative authorship was paramount.

2. The Likelihood of Confusion: Citing established principles regarding consumer confusion, the Court acknowledged that trade dress must be assessed collectively. If consumers were to perceive the two brands as significantly similar, the potential for passing off would necessitate legal intervention.

3. Evidence of Intent to Copy: The degree of evidence presented illustrating the defendant's intention to replicate aspects of Honasa’s trade dress played a pivotal role in the decision-making process.

Ultimately, the judgment recognized that the likelihood of consumer confusion was substantial, warranting interim protection for the plaintiff pending further examination of factual nuances.

To know more about this please check the link below.

Implications of the Case

For Honasa Consumer Ltd.

The positive ruling delivers significant validation to Honasa's claims, bolstering its market position and providing a measure of protection against infringement. The case sets a precedent that highlights the value of trade dress in carving out brand identity in competitive sectors.

For Cloud Wellness Pvt. Ltd.

On the flip side, the ruling presents challenges for Cloud, spotlighting the necessity of developing unique branding that does not encroach upon established market players. It serves as a cautionary tale that brand positioning requires due diligence and consideration of existing trademarks and trade dress.

Wider Industry Implications

The case impact extends to the broader landscape of trademark and copyright enforcement in India, reinforcing the imperative for brands to invest in distinctive branding elements. Ultimately, it serves to remind businesses that originality and distinctiveness in branding not only create competitive advantages but also offer legal protection from market imitation.

Conclusion

The case of “Honasa Consumer Ltd. v. Cloud Wellness Pvt. Ltd. CS(COMM)439/2018 &CC970/2007,” underscores the complexities surrounding copyright infringement and trade dress protections in the skincare industry. The Delhi High Court’s judgment serves as an important reference point in reinforcing brand protection mechanisms while illuminating the standards necessary for demonstrating originality in trade dress.As the skincare market evolves, legal disputes such as these will continue to shape the competitive dynamics, compelling brands to refine their strategies regarding branding, marketing, and intellectual property rights. For both Honasa and Cloud, the resolution of this dispute signifies more than a legal victory or loss; it reflects broader stakes involving consumer perception and business integrity in an increasingly crowded marketplace.