The Changing Importance of Protection of Trademark and Designs for India’s New Digital First Brands

Introduction

The consumer environment is changing rapidly in India. Within a short period of time, the nation has seen the astronomical growth of homegrown Direct-to-Consumer brands such as boAt, Mamaearth, and Lenskart which have disrupted the age-old Fast-Moving Consumer Goods giants and redefined the marketing, branding, and selling process. Such companies are not just companies, but also lifestyle movements based on being digitally connected and communally engaged.

The difference between these brands is their strategy to sell online rather than offline stores unlike the traditional business. They do not have to go through middlemen and sell goods through online markets and use social media as a means of reaching customers instead of the old-fashioned means of advertisement. Their business concept is built on trust, recognition, and visual storytelling features that are impossible to ignore and without the protection of intellectual property, these practices unfeasible.

The concept of IP has moved over the years where it was thought about as an afterthought to one of the strategic pillars. In the case of the D2C brands, the intellectual property is not a formality that is part of the laws it is the foundation of brand recognition, customer trust and sustainability in a time when a copy can be made in a few clicks.

Designing a Brand: The importance of Trademarks.

The battle that D2C brands would fight to ensure that the mindshare is immediately recalled is the battle of recognition. This recognition is based on a good trademark. With several startups being opposing each other every day, in the industry of D2C, a name with a difference and a defence has to be unique and defensible.

The effectiveness of trademark strategy was proved by such companies as boAt and Mamaearth. Since their start, they have registered their marks under pertinent classes to consume their products, e-commerce services, as well as merchandising opportunities.

The importance of trademarks by the Indian courts has always been strengthened by the fact that the brands are well-established in terms of reputation and goodwill. In this respect, in the case of Tata Sons Ltd v Manu Kishori, the Delhi high court emphasized that even digital misuse of a trademark that has gained a reputable status can be infringement. Since the other party has been made an attempt to make a website similar to the mark of the applicant since they are well known and have been in the business for quite a number of years. This case can especially be applied to D2C firms which depend very much on search engine ranking and positioning in marketplaces and where confusion of name can happen easily. These trademarks have become more than digital assets which help them more than just differentiate from their competitors rather make an imprint on the mind of the consumers and become the first name that come up when they search for a particular good.

The appeal of Packaging: Identity as Trade Dress.

In the real life, a logo on a brand can catch the eye of a customer, whereas in the online world, its visual aesthetic can become a recognizable factor. D2C brands know this well. The social media presence of Mamaearth, tech-driven aesthetics of boAt or smooth cases of eyewears, Lenskart – these are not design choices, they are brand philosophy.

Trade dress protection is accepted by Indian law, and is brought to a product in general visual appearance, such as colour scheme, shape, texture, and layout, so long as these aspects are distinctively not functional. In the case of Colgate Palmolive Co. v Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt Ltd, where the applicant being a manufacturer of toothpaste, has a particular design that is well recognised by the consumers. It alleged that the opponent also being in the same business has copied the design so that it may appear to buyer as if it is the applicant’s. The Delhi High Court affirmed that imitating packaging is likely to mislead the consumers thus amounting to passing off.

Further in the case of Pernod Ricard India & Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, which involved claims over whiskey labels, the Supreme Court held that trade dress and the label appearance can be a part of the trademark analysis if it is the cause of creating confusion.

Trade dress protection is not a defensively based strategy in D2C brands since unboxing experience is included in marketing. Protection of packaging prevents the competitors to replicate the appearance and feel that people have attached with a certain brand psychologically, this is especially important since while going through the pages of online stores we generally tend to look for patterns of packaging more than the name of the product itself in the first glance.

Designing for Distinction: Design Patent Leveraging.

Image uniqueness of a product in its own right can also be a valuable IP resource. Registration of design features including shape, configuration, and ornamentation is possible through the Designs Act, 2000 in India. Compared to a patent, design registration is quicker, cheaper and very suitable with tangible consumer products.

A large number of Indian D2C brands, most particularly in the skincare, wellness, and tech accessories, rely on design registration to secure unique forms of products. Examples of such products include a custom bottle, jar, or headphone casing, which can be registered as a design, and so no other individual can copy it. The startups have come to the point of trying to safeguard their product moulds and packaging through design protection as a cheaper way of protecting their creativity in comparison to litigation.

This practical strategy enables small players to achieve concrete exclusivity and place them in a better position in the market specifically in the case of competition with resourceful FMCG conglomerates.

Digital arena, Digital infringement and counterfeits.

The greatest challenge of the D2C system in India is in the digital frontier however, a place where there is both potential and danger. It has never been easier than through online marketplaces to reach out to consumers but at the same time it has opened floodgates to counterfeiters.

There is an excess of fake listings that recreate branding, steal photos or use deceptive keywords. Not only are such counterfeits detrimental to sales; they also damage consumer trust even in some cases beyond repair. In the case of Lifestyle Equities v Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court made a breakthrough since it observed that online commerce sites could be accountable when promoting the transfer of counterfeit products. This decision indicated that marketplaces have to increase their IP protection measures.

The solution to digital infringement is to invest in brand protection mechanisms like Amazon Brand Registry, as well as IP Protection Program offered by Flipkart, among other D2C companies. Some of them are implementing automated monitoring services that indicate lookalike listing on-flight.

However, for smaller startups, this enforcement is an uphill task. The financial expenses of litigation, its bureaucratic deactivation, and the magnitude of internet piracy itself make active IP administration hard. The D2C founders must see digital IP enforcement as a core business activity just as marketing or logistics. Problems can be avoided later because they can be expensive to counteract.

Conclusion

The D2C revolution signifies the entrepreneurial awakening of India a movement where originality, consumer empathy and internet agility is the success factor. There comes vulnerability with this freedom. One infringing listing or copied package may reverse years of brand-building.

In my view, the future of D2C in India will be of those, who will not perceive IP as a liability, but as a strategic asset, as a competitive advantage. Trademarks, trade dress, design registration, and real-time online surveillance have established an all-encompassing IP strategy that allows these digital-first brands to possess their identity, protect innovation, and establish a trusted relationship that lasts.

The effectiveness of a brand will not be measured through advertising budget or distribution channel as the consumer economy in India goes more digital, but the legal protection of the identity made. In a place where copying easily is a thing, originality becomes the final point of distinction.

Author:– Soham Panja,  in case of any queries please contact/write back to us atsupport@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

References

• Nimrat Singh, Concept of Trade Dress in India, https://www.iiprd.com/concept-of-trade-dress-in-india/
• Siddharth Raj Choudhary, Protection Of Trade Dress In India, https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1153586/protection-of-trade-dress-in-india#authors
• Shakthi Bharathee, CASE COMMENT: LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. V. AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC. (DELHI HIGH COURT, 2025), https://jlrjs.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/83.-Shakthi-Bharathee.-S.pdf
• SpicyIP, Double-Dipping via Design? Why the Crocs Judgment on Trade Dress and Design Rights Wrongly Mixes it Up https://spicyip.com/2025/07/double-dipping-via-design-why-the-crocs-judgment-on-trade-dress-and-design-rights-wrongly-mixes-it-up.html
• Bhumi Raj, Protection Of Design In India: A Complete Guide, https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1633706/protection-of-design-in-india-a-complete-guide
• Mamaearth: Start-Up Fends Off Infringer, https://www.remfry.com/mamaearth-start-up-fends-off-infringer/

Cases

• Tata Sons Ltd v Manu Kishori 2001 IIIAD Delhi 545
• Colgate Palmolive Co. v Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt Ltd 2003 SCC ONLINE DEL 1005
• Pernod Ricard India & Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra 2025 INSC 981
• Lifestyle Equities v Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd 2022 DHC 4091