Design protection in FMCG: A strategic shield for brand identity
30 September 2025
“Consumers don’t just buy toothpaste. They buy trust, familiarity and a feeling of home”
In the FMCG world, packaging isn’t just a container – it’s a conversation. The curve of a toothpaste tube, the embossing on a soap bar, the colour gradient on a shampoo bottle – these elements speak directly to consumers, often more loudly than the brand name itself.
the FMCG companies, this raises a critical question:Are we protecting what makes our products instantly recognizable, not just through trademarks, but through design registrations?
Visual memory at point of purchase
A shopper walks into a store, glances at a shelf crowded with options and instinctively reaches a particular product. Not because they read the label, but because they are attracted by the distinctive shape, surface texture or visual configuration. Moreover, the moment of recognition is built on design memory, not just brand names.
Now imagine a competitor mimicking those visual cues: a similar contour, a deceptively familiar surface finish, a nearly identical dispenser. The shopper hesitates, as the trust is disrupted by a design imitation. This has the potential of compounding into a big legal problem.
This reinforces the critical role of securing design rights.
Case law spotlight
Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. v. Asia Fibre Glass Products. This case dealt with the issue of infringement of a registered helmet design. Steelbird, a leading helmet manufacturer, held registered designs for its distinctive helmet models. The defendants, Asia Fibre Glass Products, allegedly copied said designs and sold lookalike helmets in the market. The plaintiff filed a suit for design infringement, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The Delhi High Court applied the noticeability test that comprises visual comparison of the products and ascertained substantial similarity. The court ruled that the defendant’s helmets were deceptively similar and constituted piracy under Section 22 of the Designs Act 2000. The plaintiffs were awarded Rs9.6 million (US$107,000) in damages, along with permanent injunction against the infringing party.
Eicher Goodearth Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishna Mehta & Ors.Good Earth alleged infringement of its products featuring motifs, patterns and designs. The products were registered designs under the Designs Act and had gained strong goodwill and consumer recognition worldwide. The defendant, Krishna Mehta, a former design consultant for Good Earth, later founded India Circus in November 2011. It was alleged that Krishna Mehta had knowledge of these designs and allegedly exploited this knowledge and sold products featuring motifs, patterns and designs strikingly similar to Good Earth’s.
The court held that Good Earth successfully met the three-fold test for passing off: goodwill attached to its designs, misrepresentation by India Circus leading to consumer confusion and damage to Good Earth’s reputation and business. Therefore, an interim injunction was granted in favour of Good Earth. Moreover, on the ground of novelty, the court reaffirmed a significant principle in Paragraph 28: “Even though the design is old in itself, if it is applied to a new article to which it has never been previously applied, then the said design needs to be protected.” In other words, designs may be “old” in essence but can be “original” through novel application.
Micolube India Ltd v. Rakesh Kumar (R.K. Enterprises). Micolube was the registered proprietor of a design related to a lubricant container. The defendant, Rakesh Kumar, operating as R.K. Enterprises, manufactured and sold lubricant containers bearing a design substantially similar to the plaintiff’s registered design.
The court held in favour of the plaintiff, concluding that the defendant’s product was a slavish imitation of the registered design. The resemblance between the designs was significant enough to cause confusion, and therefore, the defendant’s actions constituted an infringement of the plaintiff’s registered design rights. The court applied the test of visual similarity and overall impression on an informed user. As per the court, minor differences did not alter the fundamental aesthetic of the product.
Why design protection deserves your attention
The above decisions are few judicial precedents that underscore the protective scope of the Designs Act, 2000, reinforcing that designs which are substantially copied, even if not identical, infringe the rights of the registered proprietor. By granting injunctions and recognizing passing off, these decisions send a strong message to potential infringers that unlawful copying will be met with decisive judicial intervention.
The design registration offers a robust framework for safeguarding the visual identity of products. A registered design provides protection for 10 years, which can be extended by an additional five years, giving companies a long-term legal shield against imitation.
More importantly, design registration creates a formal barrier against copycat packaging. In industries like FMCG, where shelf appeal and consumer recognition are critical, this protection helps maintain brand integrity and market share. It also complements existing trademark and copyright strategies, forming a layered IP shield that defends both functional and aesthetic aspects of a product.
Design protection is a proactive strategy. It can prevent costly litigation, reduce enforcement burdens, and enhance licensing leverage in commercial negotiations.
By collaborating closely with marketing and product development teams, companies can identify protectable features early in the design cycle, ensuring that innovation is not only creative but defensible. Because in today’s crowded marketplace, design isn’t decoration – it’s differentiation.
About the author
Law firms
