A major update has come in the trademark dispute between Dabur-Patanjali mediation fails in the toothpaste packaging dispute. In the recent update, the Delhi High Court was notified that the mediation efforts between Dabur and Patanjali had not succeeded. The case revolves around allegations made by Dabur, accusing Patanjali of copying the trade dress, i.e., the overall look and packaging style, of its widely recognized Red Toothpaste. But how did this all start, and what is the future of this case?
How the Dabur–Patanjali Packaging Dispute Began
The dispute began when Patanjali launched its Dant Kanti Red Toothpaste (Pan Flavor) in December 2024. For many, it appeared to be just another product extension from Patanjali’s Ayurvedic oral care line. However, Dabur, one of India’s most prominent and long-standing toothpaste brands, saw something concerning.
Dabur observed that the color scheme, design, and overall look of Patanjali’s product were very similar to its own well-known Red Toothpaste, a brand that has held a strong presence in the market and consumer loyalty for many years.
Dabur made it clear that their objection wasn’t about the use of the word “Red” or even the betel leaf illustration featured on the packaging. Instead, their concern centered around the complete visual identity of the product, which they claim is confusingly similar to theirs. Dabur argues that such resemblance can mislead consumers and amounts to a violation of trade dress laws, which protect the unique visual presentation of a product.
After all this, Dabur filed a case against Patanjali in the Delhi High Court on December 24, 2024, claiming that Patanjali had copied the look and packaging of its well-known Red Toothpaste. With initial hearings held on January 15 and 16. During these hearings, Dabur also asked the court to grant an interim injunction—a temporary order to stop Patanjali from using the disputed packaging until the case is fully decided.
Why the Court Referred Dabur and Patanjali to Mediation
While the case was being heard, the court suggested mediation to try and resolve the dispute peacefully. Mediation means both parties—Dabur and Patanjali—sit down with a neutral third person (a mediator) to try and find a solution without going through a full court trial. This is often faster and less expensive than a legal fight. Both sides participated in the discussions, but by August 1, 2025, the court was informed that the mediation had failed, meaning no agreement could be reached. Since Dabur was seeking urgent relief in the form of an interim injunction to stop Patanjali from using the disputed packaging, the court decided that no further mediation was needed and allowed the case to proceed in court.
Read Also: Columbia Sportswear Sues Columbia University Over Trademark Dispute
What’s Next in the Dabur–Patanjali Legal Battle?
Now that the case is officially moving forward in court (because mediation failed), the judge has set the next date for the hearing, which is December 5, 2025. Before this date, Patanjali is required to submit its written reply to the court. This reply is called a “written statement,” and it’s basically Patanjali’s side of the story or defense in response to Dabur’s complaint.
Once Patanjali submits that, the court will start listening to both parties. This means lawyers from both Dabur and Patanjali will present their arguments, show evidence, and try to prove their points.
Conclusion
The legal battle between Dabur and Patanjali over toothpaste packaging is now headed for a full court hearing after failed mediation efforts. With both sides preparing to present their arguments, the final outcome will play a key role in determining how brand identity and packaging are protected under Indian trademark laws.
Read Also: List of required documents for patent filing in India