Delhi High Court: In an application filed by EBC Publishing Pvt Ltd (plaintiffs) under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an interim and temporary injunction against Young Global Publishers (defendant), Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., granted ex parte ad-interim injunction against defendants from manufacturing, publishing, marketing, soliciting orders, directly or indirectly selling/offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner, the plaintiffs flagship ‘coat pocket’ edition of the bare acts of the Constitution of India in a trade dress similar to that used by the plaintiffs in the iconic red and black style.
The plaintiffs are a well-known entity in the field of law-related content publishing, and for over 84 years, have been recognised for creating authentic and reliable law-related content, including but not limited to Legal Commentaries, Annotated Statutory Law, and Law Reports. The plaintiffs hold a registered trademark under Class 16 and other classes for their device mark. The suit pertains to the plaintiffs’ rights in the distinctive trade dress, get-up, and overall presentation of their ‘COAT-POCKET edition’ of the Bare Acts of the Constitution of India.
The name ‘Eastern Book Company’ and its abbreviation ‘EBC’ have become synonymous with law textbooks, various editions and versions of books, and legal publications. Through their expertise and experiences in the publishing industry, the plaintiffs curate content on SCC Online®, a web-based research database for students, academicians, and legal professionals. The ‘Supreme Court Cases’ (SCC), a law report of the plaintiffs, is the most cited law report before all the Courts across India and abroad. Since 2009, the plaintiffs have been publishing a COAT-POCKET edition of the bare act of the Constitution of India ‘coat-pocket editions’ featuring a distinctive trade dress, including a signature ‘black-red’ colour combination, with a specific font style, gold leafing, and overall trade dress, on thin bible paper. The said trade dress has been incorporated in all the editions of the Constitution of India published to date.
The plaintiffs are pioneers of coat-pocket editions, which in due course have become one of their most iconic products. The coat-pocket editions are not only the plaintiffs’ most iconic products but also the flagship of the plaintiffs’ publishing business. The phrase ‘coat pocket’ has been deliberately coined, as the size of these bare acts makes them comparatively portable for carrying over the traditional versions. The plaintiffs have made significant investments in advertising their coat-pocket editions and have incurred expenses of over Rs. 75 lakhs. Since the year 2010, the plaintiffs have sold over 1,04,805 copies of coat-pocket editions. The plaintiffs’ coat-pocket editions are being sold through various trade channels, including offline stores, third-party e-commerce platforms, and its own website, i.e., www.ebcwebstore.com.
First launched in 2009, EBC’s Coat-Pocket Constitution was an innovation in legal publishing designed as a portable with a signature red-and-black trade dress, a specific font style and layout, gold leafing and embossed detailing and publication on thin bible paper. Over the years, it has become one of EBC’s most iconic and best-loved publications, trusted by judges, lawyers, students, and even public figures. Now in its 17th edition, the Coat-Pocket Constitution continues to be the plaintiffs’ flagship product, enjoying immense goodwill, reputation, and recognition in the Indian legal market. The image is as follows:
The defendant is known to be a publisher and is in the business of publishing bare acts of various statutes and rules. Around July 2025, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendant is publishing, marketing, soliciting orders for, and selling a COAT-POCKET version of the defendant’s Constitution of India Bare Act ‘impugned coat pocket editions’, through similar trade channels as those of the plaintiffs’ including online market places such as Amazon, Flipkart, third-party online channels, as well as retail stores. The impugned coat-pocket editions bear striking similarity to the plaintiffs’ coat-pocket editions. In fact, the defendant has adopted a similar trade dress to that of the plaintiffs.
The defendant is also selling its coat-pocket editions of the Constitution of India in a black and green colour combination, which is not disputed by the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs are aggrieved by the acts of the defendant in adopting the red and black colour combination on its impugned coat-pocket editions. It is contended that the same is malafide and is being carried out with the intention to deceive unwary customers and ride upon the plaintiffs’ goodwill. The defendant is also imitating the plaintiffs’ layout and presentation style in their own listings on e-commerce platforms, which further establishes the defendant’s intention to pass off its coat-pocket editions as those of the plaintiffs. The impugned trade dress of defendants is as follows:
The Court noted that a bare perusal of the plaint and comparison of the plaintiffs’ coat pocket editions with the defendant’s impugned coat-pocket editions of the Constitution of India, it is prima facie evident that the impugned trade dress/design is deceptively similar to the trade dress/design adopted by the plaintiffs. The defendant has adopted a similar colour scheme, text and font, gilt edging, book posteen colour, and embossed gold detailing. Considering that the plaintiffs and the defendant operate in the same line of business, utilize identical trade channels, and cater to the same class of customers, there exists a strong likelihood of confusion and to an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the trade dress of the defendant’s impugned coat-pocket editions is likely to appear identical to that of the plaintiffs’ coat-pocket editions. Such a similarity is likely to mislead consumers regarding the source or origin of the said products.
The Court concluded that the plaintiffs made out a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction against the defendant and if an interim injunction is not granted at this stage, irreparable harm/ injury would be caused to the plaintiffs as well as balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs, and against the defendant.
Thus, the Court directed:
i. The defendant by itself or through partners, legal heirs or successors, associates, assignees in business, licensees, franchisees, dealers, distributors, stockists and/or agents be restrained from manufacturing, publishing, marketing, soliciting orders, directly or indirectly selling/offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner, the plaintiffs flagship ‘coat pocket’ edition of the bare acts of the Constitution of India in a trade dress similar to that used by the plaintiffs in the iconic red and black style as is mentioned above;
ii. The defendant, its directors, partners, principals, employees, agents, distributors, franchisees, representatives, and assignees, to remove any/all and recall their unsold inventory of all the coat pocket edition of the Constitution of India from the market and remove their listings or listings of the third parties of the coat pocket version of the Constitution of India from all the ecommerce platforms.
[EBC Publishing Pvt Ltd v Young Global Publishers, CS(COMM) 1033/2025, decided on 25-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Ms. Garima Bajaj, Mr. Kanav Agarwal, Mr. Kartikay Dutta and Ms. Anukriti Trivedi, Advocates for plaintiff
None for defendants