Case details: Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. M/s. Zydillac Dermaceuticals & Anr., CS(COMM) 857/2024
BRIEF:
The competing products are reproduced below:
| Plaintiff’s Trade Dress | Defendant’s Trade Dress |
 |  |
The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendants for dealing in face wash products under the ZYDIGLOW trade dress/tube packaging, alleged to be identical to the Plaintiff’s well-known AHAGLOW trade dress/tube packaging.
The Plaintiff contended that an agency was engaged to develop the unique trade dress/label, which was transferred to the Plaintiff through a copyright assignment agreement effective from 06.12.2022. It was further stated that the Plaintiff’s product features distinctive artwork, specifically designed to differentiate it from others. The Plaintiff argued that the similarity in design, color scheme, and overall get-up between the two trade dresses is not coincidental but deliberate, intending to mislead the public into believing that the Defendant’s product is associated with or endorsed by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff also informed the Court that a legal notice was served, asking the Defendants to cease using the impugned trade dress. However, the Defendants denied any similarity in their reply. The Hon’ble Court, after considering the facts, found a prima facie case of copyright infringement and passing off. Consequently, an ad-interim ex-parte injunction was granted, restraining the Defendants from using the impugned packaging.
Counsel appearing for Plaintiff: Mr. Sachin Gupta with Mr. Rohit Pradhan, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Prashansa Singh, Ms. Archna, Mr. Yashveer Singh, Mr. Adarsh Agarwal, and Mr. Tanmay Sharma
