Bombay High Court Protects 'UMANG' Tea Label: Court Finds 'UTSAHA' Packaging to be a Slavish Reproduction and Continues Injunction

Bombay High Court Protects 'UMANG' Tea Label: Court Finds 'UTSAHA' Packaging to be a Slavish Reproduction and Continues Injunction.

Bombay High Court's decision in Anil Srichand Kundnani v. Pruthvi Ishwar Patel & Anr., Interim Application (L) No. 13908 of 2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 434 of 2025, decided on 8 June 2026 by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh.

Introduction

In a significant ruling concerning copyright protection of product packaging and trade dress, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that copyright subsists not merely in individual elements of a label but in the unique expression, arrangement, colour scheme, and overall artistic presentation of those elements. The Court held that the 'UTSAHA' tea packaging adopted by the defendants was a substantial and slavish reproduction of the plaintiff's 'UMANG' tea label, thereby constituting copyright infringement and passing off.

The decision is important because it examines the interplay between copyright law and trademark law, the effect of refusal of trademark registration on copyright claims, and the evidentiary value of copyright registrations in commercial packaging disputes.

Matter Involved

The plaintiff, Mr. Anil Srichand Kundnani, proprietor of Bhagyalaxmi Tea Centre, instituted a commercial intellectual property suit alleging infringement of copyright in the artistic work embodied in the label and packaging of his tea products marketed under the mark 'UMANG.'

The plaintiff claimed to have adopted the mark 'UMANG' in 2009 for premium tea products and asserted ownership over the artistic work appearing on the packaging. According to the plaintiff, the distinctive label consisted of a particular arrangement of design elements, including:

• A shaded green colour scheme;
• A tea cup placed on a bed of cardamom pods;
• Stylized font and typography;
• Specific placement of branding elements;
• Unique overall trade dress and visual presentation.

In January 2024, the plaintiff discovered tea products marketed by the defendants under the mark 'UTSAHA,' allegedly bearing an almost identical label and packaging design. Following a complaint and a cease-and-desist notice, the plaintiff approached the Bombay High Court seeking relief for copyright infringement and passing off.

On 14 June 2024, the Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned label. The matter thereafter came up for consideration of whether the injunction should continue.

Plaintiff's Submissions and Plea

The plaintiff advanced the following principal contentions:

Long and Continuous Use

The plaintiff asserted adoption and use of the 'UMANG' mark and associated artwork since 2009 and relied upon:

• Trademark registrations and applications;
• Copyright registration obtained in November 2023;
• Sales invoices;
• Promotional materials and advertisements;
• Chartered Accountant-certified turnover figures.

The plaintiff demonstrated that annual sales had crossed approximately Rs. 19.58 crore, evidencing substantial goodwill and market recognition.

Original Artistic Work

The plaintiff contended that the label constituted an original artistic work protected under the Copyright Act. The artistic features included not merely individual components such as tea cups and cardamom imagery, but their distinctive combination and visual arrangement.

Deliberate Copying

It was argued that the defendants had copied every material feature of the plaintiff's label, including:

• Colour combination;
• Placement of design elements;
• Typography;
• Decorative features;
• Overall commercial impression.

The plaintiff characterized the defendants' artwork as a 'slavish reproduction.'

Passing Off

The plaintiff submitted that the defendants were attempting to ride upon the reputation and goodwill generated by the plaintiff over more than a decade of business operations.

Defendants' Submissions and Defence

The defendants opposed continuation of the injunction on multiple grounds.

Suppression of Material Facts

The defendants alleged that the plaintiff had suppressed the fact that an earlier trademark application relating to the 'UMANG' label had been refused by the Trademark Registry.

According to the defendants, this refusal cast doubt upon the plaintiff's entitlement to claim exclusive rights over the label.

Challenge to Copyright Ownership

The defendants pointed out that the copyright registration certificate named a third party as the author of the artistic work.

It was argued that:

• No deed of assignment had been produced;
• The plaintiff had failed to establish ownership of the copyright;
• The copyright registration was therefore questionable.

Invalid Copyright Registration

The defendants relied upon Section 45 of the Copyright Act and argued that because trademark registration of the label had been refused, the subsequent copyright registration was legally defective.

Independent Rights

The defendants also relied upon their own copyright registration in respect of the 'UTSAHA' artwork and contended that commonly used elements such as:

• Green packaging;
• Tea cups;
• Cardamom imagery,

could not be monopolized by any single trader.

Plaintiff's Own Alleged Infringement

The defendants further attempted to argue that the word 'UMANG' itself conflicted with another registered trademark and therefore the plaintiff could not claim equitable relief.

Court's Understanding

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh rejected the defendants' objections and found a strong prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff.

Comparison of Rival Labels

The Court undertook a visual comparison of the competing products and observed that the similarities extended far beyond generic tea packaging features.

The Court noted:

• Identical shaded green backgrounds;
• Similar cardamom arrangements;
• Similar tea cup placement;
• Similar stylized fonts;
• Similar positioning of branding elements;
• Similar overall visual presentation.

The Court emphasized that copyright protection extends to the expression of an idea rather than the idea itself.

While tea cups and cardamom may individually be common elements in tea packaging, the particular expression and arrangement adopted by the plaintiff constituted protectable artistic work.

Defendant's Opposition to 'UMANGAM'

A significant factor influencing the Court was the defendants' own opposition to the plaintiff's 'UMANGAM' label application. The Court noted that the defendants had themselves claimed before the Trademark Registry that the plaintiff's 'UMANGAM' label was deceptively similar to the defendants' mark.

According to the Court, this amounted to an implicit admission that the rival artworks were substantially similar.

Copyright Ownership Issue

The Court refused to entertain the defendants' challenge regarding authorship because:

• The defence had not been properly pleaded;
• The plaintiff had not been given an opportunity to respond;
• Copyright registration had already been granted.

The Court observed that Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules permits copyright registration where the owner applies on the basis of a no-objection certificate from the author.

At the interlocutory stage, the Court presumed compliance with statutory requirements.

Interpretation of Section 45

The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 45 of the Copyright Act and held that the provision seeks to prevent conflict between copyright registrations and trademarks owned by third parties.

The Court clarified that the plaintiff's trademark applications could not invalidate the copyright registration because the proviso concerns trademarks owned or applied for by persons other than the applicant.

The refusal of a trademark application due to a conflicting word mark did not affect copyright ownership in the artistic work.

Defendant's Copyright Registration

The Court was particularly critical of the defendants' copyright registration.

It observed that:

• The defendants had registered only a cropped portion of the artwork;
• The registered artwork differed from the artwork actually used on products;
• The defendants failed to explain this discrepancy.

The Court inferred a lack of bona fides and described the defendants' conduct as indicative of dishonest intent.

Prior Adoption and Goodwill

The Court found that:

• The plaintiff's artwork had been in use since 2009;
• The defendants claimed publication only from 2022;
• The plaintiff had established significant sales and reputation long before the defendants entered the market.

This strengthened both the copyright infringement and passing-off claims.

The Verdict

The Bombay High Court concluded that the plaintiff had successfully established:

1. A prima facie case of copyright infringement;
2. A prima facie case of passing off;
3. Prior adoption and use of the artistic work;
4. Strong goodwill and market reputation;
5. Dishonest copying by the defendants.

Accordingly, the Court made the interim application absolute and continued the injunction restraining the defendants from:

• Using the impugned 'UTSAHA' label;
• Reproducing the plaintiff's artistic work;
• Passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff.

Writer's Analysis and Commentary

This judgment is notable for several reasons.

Protection of Trade Dress Through Copyright

The Court reaffirmed that copyright law can provide powerful protection for product packaging and trade dress independently of trademark registration.

Businesses often focus exclusively on trademark rights, but this case demonstrates that artistic packaging may enjoy separate copyright protection.

Expression Versus Idea

The judgment correctly distinguishes between ideas and their expression.

No trader can claim exclusivity over common concepts such as depicting tea, cardamom, or green-coloured packaging. However, the unique artistic expression of those concepts remains protectable.

Strategic Importance of Consistency

One of the most striking aspects of the case was the defendants' opposition to the plaintiff's 'UMANGAM' application. The Court effectively used the defendants' own pleadings against them, treating them as an admission regarding similarity.

The decision serves as a reminder that positions taken before intellectual property authorities can later become relevant evidence in court proceedings.

Copyright and Trademark Coexistence

The Court's interpretation of Section 45 is particularly significant. It clarifies that refusal of a trademark application does not automatically invalidate copyright protection in an artistic work.

This distinction preserves the independent nature of copyright and trademark rights.

Honest Adoption Matters

The Court's criticism of the defendants' copyright registration strategy underscores an important principle: intellectual property registrations obtained through selective disclosures or inconsistent representations may not assist a party seeking equitable relief.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court's ruling in the 'UMANG' versus 'UTSAHA' dispute reinforces the judiciary's willingness to protect original packaging and artistic labels from imitation. The decision demonstrates that copyright law remains a potent weapon against commercial copying, especially where a competitor reproduces the overall visual impression of a successful product.

By recognizing the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic expression of its tea packaging and by continuing the injunction against the defendants, the Court has sent a clear message that imitation of a competitor's trade dress, even under a different brand name, will not be tolerated. The judgment is likely to serve as an important precedent in future disputes involving product packaging, label artwork, and trade dress protection in India.

***