In a significant ruling with direct implications for brand strategy and portfolio risk, the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has upheld a complaint against Dexe SuperBlack hair dye, finding that its packaging unlawfully exploits the advertising goodwill of Godrej Consumer Products’ long-established Inecto SuperBlack brand.

The ARB determined that the overall “get-up” of the packaging—including colour palette, layout, typography, imagery and placement of key elements—was so closely aligned to Inecto’s distinctive presentation that it created a likelihood of consumer confusion, even in the absence of proven instances of actual confusion. Critically, the ruling confirms that goodwill can subsist in the combination of packaging elements, even where individual components may be generic or descriptive when viewed in isolation.

Although the advertiser is not an ARB member, the ruling carries material commercial force. Under ARB procedures, members (including major retailers, media owners and distributors) are instructed not to accept, advertise or stock the infringing packaging from 6 February 2026. In practical terms, this places immediate pressure on supply chains, retail listings and market access.

The decision sends a clear regulatory signal: packaging is no longer treated as a peripheral marketing asset, but as a protectable advertising property capable of attracting enforcement scrutiny comparable to claims, trade names and advertising concepts. For cosmetic companies operating in competitive, price-sensitive categories—particularly where “value” brands visually track and imitate category leaders—this ruling materially raises the risk threshold for look-alike packaging strategies.

For brand owners with long-standing equity, the outcome strengthens confidence that visual brand investment is defensible, while for challengers and fast-moving entrants it underscores the need for clear visual differentiation backed by regulatory foresight. The ruling is therefore both corrective and predictive, signalling a consistently assertive approach by the ARB in protecting established advertising goodwill and shaping fair competition in the cosmetic and personal care sector.

Why This Matters to Cosmetic Companies

This ruling materially raises the regulatory, commercial and reputational risk associated with packaging strategies that sit too close to imitating category leaders.

Key regulatory signals:

• Combination of packaging elements (colour, layout, typography, imagery) can attract protection, even without trademark infringement.
• Likelihood of confusion, not proof of actual confusion, is sufficient to warrant and adverse ruling by the ARB Directorate.
• Non-ARB membership offers no practical insulation where retailers, media owners and distributors are ARB members and may refuse to carry offending packaging.
• Long-standing, high-investment packaging is increasingly treated as a strategic brand asset, not mere decoration.

Business, Portfolio & Reputational Impact

Predictive impact for cosmetic companies includes:

• Forced packaging redesigns with compressed timelines and sunk cost exposure likely for brands that imitate category leaders too closely.
• Retail delisting risk where ARB members decline non-compliant stock also a possibility, leading to commercial losses.
• Portfolio disruption for value or “me-too” brands reliant on visual proximity to market leaders.
• Reputational damage, particularly where brands are perceived to trade off consumer confusion rather than differentiation, value proposition or efficacy.

Conversely, brand owners with distinctive equity benefit from stronger regulatory protection of their packaging investments.

Strategic Insights for Brand Owners and their Regulatory Teams

• Packaging is firmly within the regulatory risk perimeter, alongside claims and advertising copy.
• Competitive benchmarking must move beyond “category norms” to goodwill proximity analysis to avoid imitating competitors too closely.
• Early regulatory scrutiny can prevent costly post-launch remediation.

Recommended Remedial & Preventive Actions

Cosmetic companies should:

• Conduct pre-launch packaging clearance reviews, focusing on overall visual impression, not individual elements against competitors.
• Map market leaders’ protected “get-up” combinations within each category and do not fall foul of direct imitation.
• Build documented design rationale demonstrating independent creation and differentiation of packaging trade dress and get up.
• Stress-test packaging against reasonable consumer confusion scenarios during consumer testing phases.
• Engage regulatory teams before final artwork approval, not post-production or launch.

Bottom Line

The ARB has made it clear: visual imitation is no longer a low-risk shortcut. Packaging strategy must now balance commercial competitiveness with regulatory defensibility. For African cosmetic markets, this decision signals a tightening enforcement environment where brand equity—earned over decades—will be actively protected.