Delhi High Court Restrains ‘FOXTEEL’ Hair Products for Deceptive Similarity With Bare Anatomy Trade Dress

Delhi High Court Restrains ‘FOXTEEL’ Hair Products for Deceptive Similarity With Bare Anatomy Trade Dress

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte ad-interim relief restraining the manufacture, sale and marketing of hair care products sold under the brand name “FOXTEEL”, holding that the packaging and overall trade dress are deceptively similar to the “Bare Anatomy” products of Onesto Labs Private Limited. The Court found that the similarity was likely to mislead consumers and amount to trade dress infringement and passing off.

Factual Background

Onesto Labs Private Limited is engaged in the manufacture and sale of premium personal care products, including shampoos and hair serums, under the brand “Bare Anatomy.” The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the Bare Anatomy trademark and has been using a distinctive trade dress since 2018, characterised by specific colour combinations, bottle shapes, label layouts and visual presentation.

The products are widely sold across India through major e-commerce platforms such as Amazon and Flipkart, and have acquired significant goodwill and consumer recognition.

In early November 2025, the plaintiff discovered that hair care products marketed under the brand “FOXTEEL”, including anti-dandruff shampoo, anti-hair fall shampoo and hair growth serum, were being sold online on platforms such as Amazon and JioMart. According to the plaintiff, the FOXTEEL products were packaged in bottles that were almost identical to Bare Anatomy products in terms of colour scheme, layout, placement of branding and product claims.

Procedural Background

Onesto Labs approached the Delhi High Court seeking urgent interim relief against the manufacture, sale and marketing of FOXTEEL products, alleging trade dress infringement and passing off.

Justice Tejas Karia heard the matter and, on December 2, 2025, passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned packaging. The injunction was granted pending further hearing and is to remain in force until March 23, 2026.

Issues

1. Whether the trade dress and packaging of FOXTEEL products were deceptively similar to Bare Anatomy products.

2. Whether such similarity was likely to cause consumer confusion and amount to passing off.

3. Whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case warranting ex-parte interim protection.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff contended that it was the prior adopter and continuous user of the Bare Anatomy trade dress and that the FOXTEEL products replicated the essential, prominent and distinctive features of its packaging. It argued that the similarity was deliberate and designed to misappropriate the plaintiff’s goodwill.

It was further submitted that the FOXTEEL products were being sold through identical online sales channels and promoted alongside Bare Anatomy products on e-commerce platforms, including sponsored listings, which heightened the likelihood of consumer confusion.

The plaintiff also placed on record that a legal notice issued on November 3, 2025, calling upon the defendants to cease use of the impugned packaging, had not been complied with.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that the case involved “triple identity”—namely identical packaging, identical hair care products and identical online sales channels. Applying the test of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, the Court held that confusion was inevitable.

Justice Karia found that the overall look, feel and presentation of the FOXTEEL products were such that consumers were likely to believe that the products were associated with or originated from Bare Anatomy. The near-identical replication of the plaintiff’s trade dress was held to indicate a mala fide intent to ride on the goodwill of an established brand.

The Court held that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case of trade dress infringement and passing off, and that continued sale of the impugned products would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill.

Decision

The Delhi High Court restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising or dealing in hair care products bearing the FOXTEEL packaging or any other trade dress deceptively similar to Bare Anatomy.

During the hearing, Amazon informed the Court that it had already removed the identified infringing listings, and no further directions were issued against the platform at that stage. JioMart was directed to take down the specified FOXTEEL listings within 24 hours of receiving notice of the order.

The ex-parte ad-interim injunction will remain in force until March 23, 2026, when the matter will be taken up for further hearing.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Ms. Kripa Pandit & Mr. Christopher Thomas, Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Manas Raghuvanshi & Ms. Srishti Dhoundiyal, Advocates for D-2.