Mediation Between Dabur And Patanjali Fails In Dant Kanti Red Trademark Case: What It Means For Indian Ip Law
INTRODUCTION
In a high-stakes trademark battle that has attracted widespread attention in the Indian FMCG and Ayurveda space, the mediation attempt between industry giants Dabur India Ltd. and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. over the use of the name “Dant Kanti Red” has failed. The dispute, which centers around alleged trademark infringement and deceptive similarity, is now headed back to the courts, as mediation proceedings have yielded no settlement.
This blog delves into the legal background of the case, the implications of the mediation breakdown, and what this means for the future of intellectual property (IP) litigation in India.
BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE
At the heart of the conflict lies Patanjali’s “Dant Kanti Red” toothpaste — an Ayurvedic oral care product marketed with claims of traditional healing ingredients. Dabur, another pioneer in Ayurvedic consumer goods, claims the mark infringes on their “Lal Dant Manjan” (Red Tooth Powder), a flagship product with significant brand recognition across India, particularly in rural and semi-urban markets[1].
In its complaint, Dabur argued that:
- The term “Red” in Dant Kanti Red is deceptively similar to its own mark “Lal” (which translates to Red in English).
- The colour red, when combined with Ayurvedic oral care branding, has acquired distinctive secondary meaningover the decades.
- Patanjali’s packaging, colour scheme, and branding amount to passing off, leading to consumer confusion.
Dabur sought a permanent injunction restraining Patanjali from using the impugned mark.
WHY MEDIATION WAS ATTEMPTED
In accordance with principles laid down by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Delhi High Court initially referred the matter to mediation to explore the possibility of an amicable resolution. Mediation in IP disputes has increasingly been viewed as a progressive alternative to drawn-out litigation, especially where market goodwill and consumer perception are at stake.
The rationale included:
- Preserving long-standing business reputations.
- Avoiding protracted legal battles that attract negative publicity.
- Exploring co-existence or product differentiation options.
However, as now confirmed in court filings and media reports, the mediation failed, and the matter is back for adjudication.
KEY LEGAL ISSUES IN THE CASE
- Trademark Infringement vs. Descriptive Use – One of the pivotal questions in the case is whether “Red” is a descriptive or distinctive element. Under Indian trademark law, particularly Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, descriptive marks are typically not granted protection unless they acquire distinctiveness through extensive use. Dabur argues that “Lal” (Red) has, over decades, acquired a secondary meaning that is exclusively associated with Dabur’s oral care line. Patanjali, on the other hand, claims “Red” is a generic descriptor for the colour of the product and its herbal ingredients, and is thus not protectable.
- Passing Off and Consumer Confusion – Even if a term is not registered, Indian courts often apply the common law doctrine of passing off, which protects the goodwill of a business from misrepresentation. Dabur’s case leans heavily on this argument.
The crux is: Would an average Indian consumer, especially in non-English speaking demographics, confuse Dant Kanti Red with Dabur’s Lal Dant Manjan?
- Trade Dress Similarity – Aside from the word marks, Dabur has also alleged that the colour palette, design elements, and Ayurvedic symbolismused by Patanjali closely mimic their own trade dress. Trade dress protection has found increasing recognition in Indian IP jurisprudence, particularly post the Colgate v. Anchor[2]and Glenmark v. Curetech[3] decisions.
WHAT LED TO THE MEDIATION FAILURE?
While the details of the mediation are confidential, several reasons may have contributed to its collapse:
- Starkly divergent brand philosophies: Dabur follows a relatively conventional FMCG brand strategy, while Patanjali leverages nationalistic, swadeshi-driven narratives. This makes compromise difficult.
- Market positioning overlap: Both companies target a similar consumer base, middle-income, Ayurveda-conscious Indian households, making coexistence on similar product lines impractical.
- High-stakes reputational concerns: Any compromise could be perceived as an admission of brand dilution or weakness, which neither party is willing to accept.
- IMPLICATIONS OF THE MEDIATION BREAKDOWN
- Longer Litigation Timeline – With the mediation now terminated, the case returns to the courtroom for a full-fledged trial. This will likely involve:
- Expert testimony on consumer psychology.
- Surveys to determine brand confusion.
- Analysis of advertising history and sales data.
The final judgment may take months, if not years.
- Impact on the Oral Care Market – Both companies are major players in India’s rapidly growing herbal oral care segment. This legal uncertainty could:
- Delay future product launches.
- Impact consumer loyalty.
- Lead to increased compliance requirements for new product lines.
- Legal Precedent for Descriptive Marks – A judicial decision in this case could provide crucial guidance on how courts treat colours and common terms in the FMCG and Ayurvedic product domains. A verdict in Dabur’s favour could open the door for broader protection of non-traditional trademarks like colours, packaging elements, and even scent in India.
WIDER RAMIFICATIONS FOR INDIAN IP LAW
This case isn’t just a turf war between two corporate giants — it represents a testing ground for evolving Indian trademark jurisprudence. Here’s why:
- Rise in IP Litigation in FMCG – As the Indian consumer market grows, brand identity is becoming fiercely protected property. From biscuits to hair oil, packaging, slogans, and even celebrity endorsements are now battlegrounds for trademark claims.
- Mediation in IP: Still a Work in Progress – Though the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre has a decent track record in settling commercial disputes, complex IP matters — especially involving market leaders — often collapse due to intransigent business interests.
This failed mediation may prompt courts to:
- Encourage early-stage mediation more aggressively.
- Mandate pre-litigation settlement attempts.
- Introduce IP-specific mediation frameworks.
- Consumer Impact and Clarity: Ultimately, such disputes affect the consumer’s ability to distinguish between products. Clear jurisprudence helps reduce confusion, and empowers brands to invest in innovation without fear of imitation.
CONCLUSION
The failure of mediation in the Dabur vs. Patanjali Dant Kanti Red trademark dispute is a setback for those advocating for alternative dispute resolution in IP matters. However, it sets the stage for a potentially landmark judicial ruling that could reshape how descriptive trademarks, trade dress, and product differentiation are interpreted under Indian law. As the matter proceeds before the courts, all eyes will be on the next developments, not just from legal professionals, but also marketers, brand strategists, and consumers who navigate India’s increasingly competitive FMCG space.
Author:– Dhriti Kawale, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or IP & Legal Filing.
[1] https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/mediation-between-dabur-and-patanjali-fails-in-dant-kanti-red-trademark-case
[2] https://www.theipmatters.com/post/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-anr-v-anchor-health-and-beauty-care-pvt-ltd
