On October 6, 2026, the Delhi High Court restrained a beverage maker from using a newly shaped bottle for its “Gulpy Orange” drink, after The Coca-Cola Company argued that the bottle had been slightly changed to get around an earlier court order. Justice Vikas Mahajan examined a side-by-side comparison and recorded a prima facie view that the new bottle is “deceptively similar” to the bottle used for Coca-Cola’s “Minute Maid Pulpy Orange.”
It is a small order, five pages long, and it is worth reading for what it does and does not say. It is also a clean, everyday illustration of a question brand owners and challengers keep running into: when an injunction forces you to change your look, how much change is enough?
The backstory: an injunction from January 2025
The dispute is an ongoing suit, The Coca-Cola Company v. Chhabee Nutricos Industries LLP. On January 24, 2025, the Delhi High Court passed an interim order restraining Chhabee from dealing in goods bearing the word mark “GULPY ORANGE,” a “GULPY ORANGE” label or bottle, or any mark identical or similar to Coca-Cola’s “PULPY ORANGE” mark, its labels, or its “MINUTE MAID PULPY ORANGE” bottle. The order also barred packaging that substantially reproduces Coca-Cola’s label, and separately restrained the use of any bottle shape, or other mark, identical or similar to Coca-Cola’s registered distinctive bottle device.
Later, Coca-Cola filed an application complaining that Chhabee had not complied, limited to the old product being advertised on Instagram and other third-party websites. Chhabee complied in the meantime, Coca-Cola did not press the application, and it was disposed of on September 18, 2026.
The new application
The October 6 order concerns a fresh application, filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the provision courts use to deal with disobedience of an injunction. Coca-Cola alleged that, to get around the January 2025 order, Chhabee had slightly changed the shape of its bottle, while the overall appearance remained deceptively similar to Coca-Cola’s.
The comparison placed before the court is worth noting. It set Coca-Cola’s bottle device against the bottle Chhabee is using now, not against Chhabee’s earlier bottle. After reviewing it, the court recorded a prima facie view of deceptive similarity and restrained Chhabee from using the new bottle shape until the next hearing. Chhabee was given a final opportunity to file its reply within three weeks, and the matter is listed again on January 19, 2027.
What the order does not say
Precision matters here, because the story is easy to overstate. The order does not record a finding that Chhabee wilfully disobeyed the earlier order. It does not decide the suit. It does not rule on the validity of any registration. It restrains one specific bottle shape on an interim basis, on a prima facie assessment, and Chhabee has not yet filed its reply to this application.
Why a small tweak is a risky strategy
Two ideas from Indian trademark law explain why this kind of application gets traction.
First, shapes and packaging can function as trademarks. Section 2(1)(m) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 defines a “mark” to include the shape of goods, their packaging, and combinations of colours. That is the statutory foundation for what is usually called trade dress, and it is why Coca-Cola could rely on a registered bottle device rather than only on a word mark.
Second, courts look at overall impression rather than isolated differences. In Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. in 2003, the Delhi High Court recognised trade dress protection in a case where the parties’ trademarks were entirely different, noting that what matters is the overall impression a customer takes away from the colour combination, container shape, and packaging. Applied to a redesign, that approach means a few altered curves may not do much if the whole still reads as the same product.
Notice also how the January 2025 order was drafted. It was not limited to the original Gulpy bottle. It extended to shapes “identical or similar” to Coca-Cola’s registered device. That wording gives the order room to reach variants, which is the territory this application is operating in.
A pattern worth watching
The theme is not unique to this case. In June 2026, the Delhi High Court restrained a whisky brand from using “Godfather” even after it revised its branding to “The Glenwalk Godfather’s by Sanjay Dutt,” a story we covered in an earlier bulletin. The outcomes differ across disputes, though, and always on their own facts. In the US Peeps case we covered in IP Edge, a court declined to block a rival’s bunny-shaped candy precisely because the packaging was different enough to make confusion unlikely at the point of sale. The lesson is not that redesigns never work. It is that how far you move, and what overall impression remains, decides the outcome.
Practical takeaways
For a business that has to change a look after a restraint, the safer course is meaningful distance from the protected design, tested against the registered device itself, with legal advice before launch rather than after an application is filed. For brand owners, the case is a reminder to register shape and device marks, to keep side-by-side comparisons ready, and to word injunction requests broadly enough to capture similar variants. And for everyone, it is a useful reminder that an interim order is a snapshot: the final answer here will come from the court’s decision on the suit, not from this order.
Sources consulted for this piece: The Delhi High Court’s order dated October 6, 2026 in CS(COMM) 32/2025 (The Coca-Cola Company v. M/s Chhabee Nutricos Industries LLP), read directly, and LiveLawBiz ‘s report of the order (October 9, 2026); INTA’s compilation of Indian trademark case law (for Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.); and Khurana & Khurana’s overview of trade dress protection in India (for Section 2(1)(m)). References to the Godfather and Peeps matters draw on RAS Intellect’s earlier coverage. This piece was independently researched and written; no text has been reproduced from any source beyond the short quoted phrases above. The order is interim and the matter is pending, so the position may change.
