Bombay HC Grants Interim Injunction To Parachute Hair Oil Over Trademark Infringement
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief in favour of Marico Limited, restraining Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. and others from using labels, packaging, and bottles that are deceptively similar to the registered trademarks and trade dress of Marico’s popular “Parachute,” “Parachute Advanced,” and “Parachute Jasmine” products.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, while allowing Marico’s interim application, held that although the defendant possesses a registered trademark for “Cocoplus,” it was not marketing its products under that registered label. The Court observed that “essential features” of the plaintiff’s products had been “slavishly copied.”
The plaintiff had come across certain trademark applications filed by the defendant for marks like “COCO-PLUS” “COCO PLUS JASMINE” and “COCOPLUS AMLA,” which the former opposed. The plaintiff approached the Court with an infringement action for trademark, copyright, and passing off. However, in view of the pending application for leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent (Bombay), the Court limited its consideration to trademark and copyright infringement.
Marico submitted that it is the registered owner of several marks including the “Parachute” word and device marks, and the well-known flag, tree, and broken coconut device marks. It highlighted that these marks were not only registered but had also been in continuous and extensive use, with the “Parachute” brand in use since 1948. He argued that the defendant has copied the plaintiff’s trademarks/labels/packaging and the overall trade dress as well as the shape of bottles and containers which were unique to the plaintiff’s products.
The Court noted that Marico had issued cease and desist notices as early as 2010 and again in 2021, but the defendant continued using similar packaging. While Zee Hygiene claimed its mark “Cocoplus” had been in use since 2008 and had registration since 2005, the Court emphasized that the defendant was not using the registered version of its trademark but a variant strikingly similar to Marico’s trade dress.
“It is prima facie evident that the essential features of the plaintiff’s trade mark… have been slavishly copied by the defendant… there is absolutely no justification given by the Defendant as to why in respect of a similar product, Defendant has chosen the similar trade dress/packaging/label when its registered mark is different,” the Court said, adding that “honest adoption” could not be claimed in such circumstances.
On the issue of delay, the Court observed that delay alone, without acquiescence, is no defence in trademark infringement cases. Referring to Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Court said that infringement actions warrant protection even if the plaintiff did not act immediately.
The Court granted Marico interim reliefs, restraining the defendants from using any packaging, labels, containers, or marks deceptively similar to its registered trademarks “Parachute,” “Parachute Advanced,” and “Parachute Jasmine.”
However, a request for a four-week stay of the order was made by the defendant, which was granted by the Court.
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]
