The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief in favour of Marico Limited, restraining Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. and others from using packaging, labels, bottles, and trade dress deceptively similar to Marico’s well-known “Parachute”, “Parachute Advansed” and “Parachute Jasmine” brands.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, while deciding Marico’s interim application, noted that even though Zee Hygiene had a registered trademark for “Cocoplus,” it was not marketing its products under that registered version, but instead used a variant resembling Marico’s marks and trade dress.
“It is prima facie evident that the essential features of the plaintiff’s trademark have been slavishly copied by the defendant. There is absolutely no justification given by the defendant as to why, for a similar product, it has chosen a similar trade dress, packaging, or label when its registered mark is different,” the court stated.
Marico, in its case, submitted that it is the registered proprietor of the “Parachute” word and device marks, including the well-known flag device with the coconut tree and the broken coconut symbol. These marks have been used extensively since 1948, and the brand enjoys enormous goodwill and recognition. The company argued that the defendants’ products imitated not only its marks but also its distinctive blue-colored bottles and trade dress, which consumers associate with Marico’s Parachute oils.
The plaintiff told the court it had issued cease-and-desist notices to the defendants in 2010 and again in 2021, yet Zee Hygiene continued to market its products in packaging confusingly similar to Marico’s. Zee Hygiene, however, argued that its “Cocoplus” brand was registered and in use since 2005, and any similarities were purely coincidental.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Bogus Voting in 2024 Maharashtra Assembly Elections
The court rejected this defence, observing that Zee Hygiene had not justified why its actual marketed product deviated from its registered “Cocoplus” mark to use trade dress resembling Marico’s.
“Honest adoption cannot be claimed in these circumstances,” the court remarked.
On the issue of delay raised by Zee Hygiene, the High Court held that in trademark infringement cases, delay alone is not a valid defence. The court referred to settled precedents stating that if infringement is prima facie established, interim protection ought to be granted even if the plaintiff acted after a gap.
Quoting from established case law, the judge noted:
Delay by itself is not a sufficient defence to an action for infringement, especially where the use by the defendants is fraudulent.
The court found Marico had made a strong prima facie case, demonstrating the defendants’ products were deceptively similar in overall visual impression, including color schemes, bottle shapes, and packaging layout. It added that protecting Marico’s trademarks was not only about safeguarding its commercial interest but also protecting consumers from confusion.
Read Also:-Husband Must Maintain Wife’s Living Standard Despite Her Income: Bombay HC
“The distinctive trade mark, packaging, and trade dress adopted by the plaintiff have been copied by the defendant going as far as copying the shape of the bottles,” the court said.
Accordingly, the court restrained Zee Hygiene and its affiliates from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or offering for sale any products under the impugned marks, labels, trade dress, or containers similar to Marico’s Parachute range.
However, considering the defendants’ request, the court granted a four-week stay on the operation of the order.
Case Title: Marico Limited v. Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 32952 of 2024 with Interim Application (L) No. 33099 of 2024]
