CAN SHAPE AND PACKAGING BE PROTECTED UNDER TRADEMARK LAW IN INDIA?

INTRODUCTION

When you consider trademarks, there are likely logos, brand names, and slogans that first spring to mind. But what about a product's shape or that of its packaging? Look at the curvaceous shape of the Coca-Cola bottle or the pyramidal Toblerone chocolate bar—these are not designs; these are brand identities. With the competitive market today, businesses are looking to retain these unique elements to stand out. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, in India opened up protection for non-conventional trademarks such as shapes and packaging under the international standards set by the TRIPS agreement.

It's a business-saver for companies like food, clothing, or pharma, where the looks of a product can be as valuable as the name. Protection of forms and packaging stops fakes from confusing consumers and enables brands to establish loyalty. It's not a free-for-all, however—Indian law has a high bar, so only truly original designs will be afforded trademark protection, stopping monopolies over functional or mundane shapes. Let's find out how this occurs, from the Indian legal scenario to actual cases and the problems faced by brands.

THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE IN INDIA

India's trademark system was boosted by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which replaced an older 1958 law to bring it in line with international standards. As per law, a "mark" has been defined fairly broadly—ranging from words and logos to shapes of goods and packaging. This means that the shape of a bottle or the form of a box can be trademarked, as long as it's distinctive and can be graphically represented, say through drawings or 3D models.

The law (specifically, Section 9) prevents shapes that are purely functional—such as a shape that is necessary for the product to function—or ones that simply arise out of the product's nature, such as a basic round bottle. The goal is to avoid companies patenting designs that their competitors would have to copy. The Trade Marks Rules, 2017, also dictate how to obtain these protections, so shapes serve as brand indicators and not mere attractive packaging.

This arrangement demonstrates India's efforts to balance innovation with equity—allowing brands to protect distinctive designs while leaving the market open for all.

WHAT IT TAKES TO PROTECT SHAPES AND PACKAGING

Having a shape or packaging trademarked is not easy. The design must shout "This is my brand" without using words or logos. Certain shapes, such as the Coca-Cola bottle, are so distinctive they're immediately recognizable. But most shapes aren't inherently unique, so brands have to show "acquired distinctiveness"—customers link the shape with their product due to years of use or heavy promotion.

To make this work, businesses may provide sales figures, ad copy, or even opinion polls demonstrating individuals associate the shape with their brand. In packaging ("trade dress"), it's really more about the overall atmosphere—color combinations, designs, or distinctive box shapes. But the shape mustn't be functional. If your bottle's shape is the sole means of making it pour properly, no trademark to you—it'd create an unfair advantage.

Take Coca-Cola’s bottle (trademarked in India in 2006) or Toblerone’s triangle (2004)—both won protection by proving customers saw them as brand symbols. On the flip side, a generic box or bottle shape won’t cut it unless you’ve got serious proof it’s tied to your brand.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

Indian courts have played a critical role in sorting out what forms and packaging are protectable. Let's look at some significant cases that show how this is done.

In Knitpro International v. Examiner of Trade Marks (2022), the Delhi High Court sanctioned a knitting needle's unconventional shape, but only after making sure it was not a common design and had been established as a brand identifier. The court explained: shapes have to be distinctive and lose any generic quality if they are to be protected.

And then there's Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Anil Moolchandani (2011). Zippo's iconic lighter shape was copied, and the court stepped in, granting an injunction to stop the copies. The ruling showed that a shape can be a trademark where it is linked to the brand in customers' minds.

In Gorbatschow Wodka KG v. John Distilleries Limited (2011), a vodka company won protection for the shape of its bottle with the Mumbai High Court ruling that a derivative design could mislead consumers. Similarly, Cadbury India Limited v. Neeraj Food Products (2007) protected Cadbury packaging, illustrating that exactly similar wrappers would mislead customers.

These instances illustrate that courts are receptive to safeguarding form and packaging but require strong evidence they're unique and not merely functional.

CHALLENGES AND THE DESIGN LAW OVERLAP

Shielding shapes and packaging is not always smooth sailing. It is difficult to prove a shape is not functional or that it has acquired secondary meaning—consider costly consumer surveys or multiple years of market data. And too, the Trade Marks Registry frequently resists, invoking Section 9's prohibitions against functional or generic shapes.

Another snag is the intersection with the Designs Act, 2000. Design protection guards a product's visual appearance for 15 years maximum, on grounds of novelty and not brand identity. Trademarks, in contrast, are perpetually lasting but more difficult to obtain. You can't double-dip—once a shape is registered as a design, it cannot be a trademark unless it acquires brand recognition once the design protection has lapsed. This option catches many brands out. The shape of Lego bricks, for example, has faced cross-border trademark battles ever since its functionality overshadowed its brand worth.

In India, the brands have to take an early decision: seek a design patent for speedy, temporary cover or concentrate on a trademark for long-term brand resilience. It is a strategic choice depending upon the functionality of the shape.

CONCLUSION

In India, shapes and packaging can absolutely be protected under trademark law, but it’s no easy feat. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, allows it, and courts have backed it up, but only for designs that scream “unique” and point straight to the brand. The catch? You’ve got to prove it’s not just functional, and the overlap with design law adds complexity. For companies, being right on this involves better protection for brands, satisfied consumers, and a more balanced marketplace. It's not an easy road, but for design icons, it's worth the battle.