The Delhi High Court has been informed that mediation between Dabur India Limited and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. has failed to resolve their ongoing dispute over alleged imitation of trade dress in toothpaste packaging. The case will now be taken up for further consideration in December 2025. At the heart of the dispute is Dabur’s claim that Patanjali’s “Dant Kanti Red (pan flavour)” toothpaste, launched in December 2024, closely mimics the packaging and trade dress of Dabur’s own flagship Dabur Red toothpaste.
Dabur contends that this similarity could mislead consumers and erode its brand identity in a highly competitive market. The company has clarified that it has no objection to Patanjali using the term “Red”, the pan leaf symbol, or even the earlier packaging for the product, but takes issue specifically with the new design’s alleged imitation of its trade dress. The matter was previously referred to mediation in January 2025, during which the Court had also urged Patanjali to consider altering its packaging. However, both parties have now confirmed that the mediation did not result in a settlement.
This is not the only dispute between the two companies. In December 2024, Dabur filed a separate disparagement suit against Patanjali over an advertisement featuring Swami Ramdev, in which he was seen questioning the authenticity of other Chyawanprash products in the market. Dabur argued that the commercial was misleading and harmful to consumer trust in a category of products that is regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act as classical Ayurved medicine.
In response to this earlier dispute, the Delhi High Court passed an interim order in July 2025, directing Patanjali to remove the disparaging advertisements targeting Dabur’s Chyawanprash products. The Court’s decision to grant Dabur an exemption from initiating another round of mediation, citing “sufficient grounds” due to the nature of interim reliefs being sought, suggests that the legal battle between the two companies is far from over. The case will now be taken up for further consideration in December 2025, and it remains to be seen how the Court will ultimately rule on the dispute.