[This post is authored by Mayank Yadav. Mayank is a third year B.A. LL.B. student from National Law School of India University, Bangalore with a keen interest in IP Law and ADR.]
The Delhi High Court recently passed an order in a dispute between two big Indian publishers- EBC Publications and Rupa Publications on the rights concerning the look and feel of India’s most widely circulated humble pocket Constitution. On 25th September 2025, the Court, granted an interim injunction to EBC Publications against Rupa Publications for imitating the trade-dress of the former’s “Coat-Pocket” edition of the Constitution. The post examines the order, which, while having a just outcome, appears thinly reasoned in its analysis of the broader principles of passing off and trade-dress protection in India. The post also reflects on the larger tension between protecting goodwill and ensuring fair competition.
EBC, a well-known legal entity engaged in the business of publishing law books, bare acts, etc., claimed that their “coat-pocket” edition features a distinctive trade-dress, which includes a signature “black-red” colour combination, along with specific font style, gold leafing and the use of thin bible paper. Rupa Publications allegedly sold a similar edition that looked strikingly similar, with a near-identical colour scheme, design elements, and through similar channels as that of EBC. Subsequently, EBC filed an application seeking an interim and temporary injunction against Rupa Publications, arguing that Rupa’s version amounted to passing off, and was an attempt to ride on EBC’s established goodwill.
The High Court agreed with EBC and held that the case satisfies the three-fold test for granting an interim injunction, i.e. prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience. After comparing both editions, it prima facie held that the impugned trade dress is deceptively similar to EBC’s “pocket-edition” and irreparable injury would be caused to EBC if the injunctions are not granted. Furthermore, it held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of EBC. It observes:
“[25.] …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. Such a similarity is likely to mislead consumers regarding the source or origin of the said products.”
Accordingly, it restrained Rupa from manufacturing, publishing, marketing, selling, or advertising any “coat-pocket” edition of the Constitution in a trade dress deceptively similar to that of the EBC, and further directed them to recall unsold inventory and remove online listings of the impugned edition.
Why the Order Leaves Much to be Desired?
A landmark judgement relating to passing off in trade dress in India is the case of Colgate Palmolive Company & Another v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court 2003). The Court held that, while no one owns the colour red, but Colgate’s red-and-white toothpaste packaging, used consistently for decades, acquired distinctiveness and Anchor’s near-identical packaging causes confusion.
In the present case, while the injunction appears fair, the reasoning behind it leaves much to be desired. The Court largely reproduced EBC’s submissions without engaging deeply with the principles of passing off and the order per se is thinly reasoned. But one could say that even though the reasoning was sparse, the outcome itself seems justified.
For a successful passing off action, the claimant has to satisfy the ‘classic trinity’. Wherein, the claimant has to prove 1) goodwill associated with its product, 2) misrepresentation by the defendant, and 3) likelihood of damage to that goodwill.
On goodwill, EBC has earned the goodwill associated with their products, over the years, as the “coat-pocket” edition has become their signature product, used by judges, lawyers, and even politicians who famously used the same during their campaigns. Similar arguments about the goodwill were made before the Court as well.
On misrepresentation, there was misrepresentation as the colour scheme and other elements of Rupa’s edition was similar to EBC’s product. Especially the use of “black-red” colour combination for the colour, along with specific font style, gold leafing, and the use of thin bible paper.
On the likelihood of damages to the goodwill, EBC argued that it has suffered financial setbacks and loss of reputation because of Rupa’s adoption of the allegedly similar trade dress. To back this us, they argued that a confirmed order of 18,000 units of their product was cancelled because of the Rupa’s misrepresented offerings. Although this can justify the damage to EBC’s business, it may not fit within the third yardstick to assess damages to goodwill because of two erroneous prongs. First, the cancellation itself signals monetary loss and not necessarily the likelihood of damage to goodwill. Second, it is plausible that the cancellation was simply due to the cheaper price offered and not due to passing off.
Nevertheless, the cancellation of orders is anyway a moot point as in cases of alleged passing off, actual damage or intent to deceive is not needed to be proved, but the likelihood of damage to goodwill that suffices, and that likelihood was evident here from the striking visual similarity between the two editions, capable of misleading an ordinary consumer.
Concluding Remarks
The case forces us to reflect on a larger point, i.e. where does protection end and fair competition begin? This tension runs through IP law, where it tries to balance the two scales: protection of goodwill on one side, and preservation of healthy competition on the other. If courts lean too far toward protection, they risk giving a single player monopoly over generic formats; if they lean too far toward competition, innovators are left exposed to shameless copying. As Prof. Shamnad Basheer and Prof. Yogesh Pai reminded us, intellectual property law must guard against both extremes.
In this case, the outcome of this order strikes that balance well (although lacking thorough analysis.) The Court did not say EBC alone can publish a pocket Constitution. It merely restrained the other publishers from copying the EBC’s distinctive “coat-pocket” edition which comprised of its ‘black-red colour, with specific font style, gold leafing, and the trade dress on thin bible paper. Other publishers remain free to make their own pocket editions, as many already do, provided they create distinctive get-ups. Similar publishing companies like Professionals had long sold other pocket versions of bare acts. The problem was not the idea of a small Constitution, but the act of imitation. To borrow a phrase from elsewhere, law of passing off is to prevent “reaping without sowing” not to stifle honest effort/ competition.