Ten Point Evidence Pack To Prove Trade Dress Injunctions – Mumbai HC

When a rival’s pack “looks like yours at first glance,” courts act fast but only if your evidence is surgical. Below is a Day-1 evidence pack that has repeatedly moved the needle in Mumbai IPD: photo grids, shelf-impact captures, usage history, goodwill numbers, confusion proofs, and defendant admissions. The logic comes straight from Parachute v. Cocoplus (overall get-up; deviation from one’s own registration), SOCIAL v Social Tribe (total adoption + same city/services), Prince Pipes (Receiver/raids), and classic tests from Parle Products and Cadila.

Why this matters

• Courts don’t nit-pick parts; they ask what an ordinary hurried shopper sees on a quick scan. Your filings must present that overall impression cleanly. (Parle, Cadila).
• Registration ≠ immunity if the rival’s actual market use drifts toward your look (as the Court flagged in Parachute/Cocoplus).
• In brazen cases, judges will go beyond a paper injunction to search-and-seizure with a Court Receiver but only when your record shows active piracy and market harm. (Prince Pipes).

Also Read : Beating “Descriptive Use”: Five Packaging Mistakes That Hand Plaintiffs a Win

The 10-Point Evidence Pack (what to file on Day 1)

1. Same-scale photography grids (front/side/top).
   One page, neutral background, identical scale. Label nothing or as little as possible let the visual speak. This aligns with the overall impression test from Parle/Cadila and the visual analysis that carried Parachute/Cocoplus.
2. Shelf-impact videos & planogram shots.
   Short in-store clips (or e-commerce gallery scrolls) showing how the rival blends into your visual lane. This “casual inspection” perspective is exactly what persuaded courts in Parachute/Cocoplus and SOCIAL.
3. Your “lookbook” (pack evolution).
   A dated montage of your colourway, silhouette, label architecture over the years anchors secondary meaning and continuity of get-up.
4. Goodwill dossier (sales/ad spend/coverage).
   CA-certified sales, media features, campaign outlays; selective third-party trade coverage. These numbers power balance of convenience and irreparable harm.
5. Consumer-confusion proofs.
   Mis-deliveries, wrong-number calls, screenshots of social/marketplace mix-ups. Even a few real-world instances bolster the likelihood-of-confusion narrative.
6. Defendant admissions.
   Pull the rival’s TM filings, packaging artwork, and marketing decks that treat the impugned get-up as a brand (not description). This sank the “descriptive use” defence in allied Bombay cases (Hem Corp; Jagdish Kamath).
7. Deviation-from-registration proof.
   Show the rival’s registered label versus actual on-shelf usage that inches toward your look an argument the Court explicitly credited in Parachute/Cocoplus.
8. Digital shelf capture.
   Amazon/Flipkart thumbnails, aggregator tiles, Instagram menus side-by-side with yours. Judges accept that mobile-first shopping magnifies first-glance confusion.
9. Territory & channel map.
   Where you sell (modern trade, GT, HoReCa) and where the rival is creeping in. For services, show same city/same service overlap; it mattered in SOCIAL v Social Tribe.
10. Enforcement escalations (only when apt).
    Undercover buys, warehouse intel, batch/engraving mismatches. If piracy is proved, ask for a Court Receiver with search-and-seizure powers as in Prince Pipes.

Also Read : Fake Evidences in Court Can Ruin Your Case (and Your Business Reputation)

Flowchart: From Look-Alike to Injunction (fast path)

Detect → Capture → File → Argue the Trinity → Enforce

1. Detect: Field photos, customer flags, marketplace links.
2. Capture: Build grids & videos (Points 1–2) + lookbook (Point 3).
3. File: Commercial IP suit + interim app; annex Points 4–10.
4. Argue the trinity: Prima facie case (overall impression), irreparable harm, balance of convenience with Parle/Cadila and Midas extract if delay is raised.
5. Enforce: If the court restrains, execute take-downs; for piracy, seek Receiver directions (Prince Pipes template).

Also Read : Why Delay in filing the trademark case alone cannot be considered a valid ground?

Comparison Table: Evidence → Legal Issue → Case Signal

Sparring-partner corner (what you might be getting wrong)

• “Colour alone can’t be protected.” True in the abstract; in practice, courts protect the combination colour + bottle silhouette + label map as trade dress. Your evidence must show source association. (Parachute).
• “Suffixes cure confusion.” Not when the core is adopted whole. SOCIAL/TRIBE shows suffixes won’t save you if services and vibe coincide.
• “Plain injunction is enough against fakes.” Not if stock is moving. For blatant piracy, ask for a Receiver to seize and seal; that’s what worked in Prince Pipes.

Also Read : Protecting Global Brands in India: Insights From The Rulings Of Madras High Court IP Divsion

About the Author

Suresh Kumar, Advocate, is the Managing Attorney at Unimarks Legal Solutions, Chennai. Practising since 2008, he focuses on trademark infringement and passing off, appeals from the Registrar, rectification, and online/platform enforcement before the Madras High Court (IPD), Commercial Courts, and District Courts across Tamil Nadu. His practice is courtroom-first, grounded in robust pleadings, evidence discipline, and post-order enforcement. He frequently speaks on IP law at industrial forums and universities and is associated with SICCI, CII, and the Tamil Nadu Chamber of Commerce.

Sources: Marico (Parachute) v. Cocoplus interim injunction (trade dress); SOCIAL v Social Tribe order (total adoption in Mumbai); Prince Pipes v Prince Platinum (Receiver/raids); Parle Products & Cadila on overall-impression confusion; Midas Hygiene on delay not defeating clear infringement.

This article is for information and education. It is not legal advice, does not create a lawyer–client relationship, and avoids case-specific recommendations. Conflicts are screened per firm policy before any engagement.

Also Read : Dynamic Injunctions in the Digital Marketplace: Reliance’s Shield Against Online Brand Misuse