'Skincare Buyers Focus On Formulation, Not Packaging': Delhi High Court Denies Interim Injunction To Derma Co Against Dermatouch

Justice Tejas Karia reasoned that the products offered by the two are distinct and since a skincare consumer's decision to purchase is guided primarily by the formulation and claimed efficacy of the product, it is unlikely that similarity in trade dresses alone would mislead an average purchaser.

The bench observed,

“The segment wherein the Plaintiff and the Defendants conduct their business, the class of purchasers is reasonably informed and ingredient-attentive; purchase decisions are materially driven by percentages, indications, and dermatological recommendations not merely by packaging colours.”

The judge added, “A variation in composition or absence of a particular ingredient is sufficient to alter the consumer's purchasing decision. When the composition itself is distinct, the product ceases to be the same in substance, and the consumer's choice is thus guided by this fundamental difference.”

Derma Co claimed that Dermatouch imitated its trade dress by blatantly copying the entire color scheme and get-up of the products. Derma Co particularly emphasized on the two-panel color scheme adopted by the company.

Dermatouch on the other hand claimed that it had adopted the Impugned Trade Dress in good faith, based on dermatological category conventions and market research, and not with the intent to imitate. It submitted that multiple skincare brands utilize similar colours based on widely accepted colour theory.

The Court at the outset observed that DermaCo and Dermatouch are visually and phonetically distinct and clearly displayed on the trade dresses, enabling consumers to distinguish between the Plaintiff's Products and the Defendants' Products.

Further, it said that both their products are specialised formulations intended to serve specific purposes, and contain different chemical compositions, varying percentages of active ingredients, recommendations for distinct skin types, and assurances of particular protection or benefits that the product would confer on the user.

“The very manner in which these details are presented on the trade dresses reflect that the purchaser is expected to evaluate them and choose accordingly…The brand name, percentage of the ingredients involved and dermatological consideration and recommendations of the medical practitioners differ,” Court said and declined interim relief.

The main suit is listed on January 19, next year.

Appearance: For the Plaintiff : Mr. Ankit Jain, Ms. V. Mohini and Mr. Udayvir Rana, Advocates. For the Defendants : Ms. Mr. Harshit S. Tolia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sitesh Narayan Singh & Mr. Rahul Khandelwal, Advocates.

Case title: Honasa Consumer Limited v. Cloud Wellness Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1196

Case no.: CS(COMM) 483/2025

Click here to read order