Delhi High Court Restrains Sale Of “ELECTROCAD” ORS For Imitating FDC's “ELECTRAL”

The Delhi High Court on 11 March, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of FDC Limited, restraining Neeraj Agarwal and a third-party manufacturer from manufacturing or selling oral rehydration salts under the mark Electrocad, whose packaging was alleged to imitate the trade dress of FDC's Electral.

Justice Jyoti Singh held that when a product is sold over the counter to consumers who may rely on visual memory rather than reading brand names, imitation of a well-known product's trade dress can cause significant consumer confusion and warrants injunctive protection. The Bench held:

“Moreover, the products in question are sold over-the-counter and consumed by people from all walks of life which includes illiterate people, incapable of reading brand names and rely on visual memory and imperfect recollection.”

FDC Limited approached the Court alleging that Neeraj Agarwal, proprietor of Cadiz Lifescience, adopted the mark “ELECTROCAD” along with packaging that closely resembled the distinctive green-and-white trade dress used for its “ELECTRAL” brand. The company submitted that the rival packaging used the same colour scheme, font style and bold underlining, creating a deceptive similarity likely to mislead consumers.

The company stated that it was incorporated in 1940 and introduced oral rehydration salts in India in 1972 under the “ELECTRAL” trademark. It argued that the brand has become a household name with annual sales exceeding Rs. 391 crores during the financial year 2023-2024. According to FDC Limited, the packaging enjoys trademark and copyright protection and has acquired “iconic status” in the minds of consumers.

FDC Limited further submitted that it had issued a cease-and-desist notice to Agarwal before filing the suit. In response, Agarwal claimed that there were significant differences between the marks “ELECTRAL” and “ELECTROCAD.” However, the company argued that the reply failed to address the striking similarity in the rival trade dress and packaging.

The company contended that Agarwal and his contract manufacturer were selling their product through the same trade channels and targeting the same class of consumers. According to the plaintiff, consumers purchasing ORS products often rely on visual recollection, making confusion between the two packages highly likely.

The Court observed that the resemblance between the rival packages appeared neither accidental nor incidental and that the defendant had prima facie attempted to come as close as possible to the “ELECTRAL” packaging to benefit from the goodwill built by FDC Limited over several decades.

Holding that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the established pharmaceutical company, the Court restrained Neeraj Agarwal, his agents and distributors from manufacturing or selling products bearing the impugned “ELECTROCAD” trade dress or any packaging confusingly similar to “ELECTRAL.”

The Court clarified that the restraint would apply both to passing off of goods and to infringement of copyright in the artistic work contained in the original packaging.