Marico Limited Vs Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd.

Introduction:The present case revolves around a commercial intellectual property dispute involving alleged infringement of well-established trademarks and copyright-protected artistic works. The Plaintiff, Marico Limited, initiated an action against Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates, alleging deliberate imitation of its proprietary trade marks, packaging, and get-up of various product lines under the iconic “PARACHUTE” brand family. The suit sought to restrain the Defendants from using deceptively similar marks and trade dress in connection with coconut and jasmine hair oil products. This judgment provides significant jurisprudential guidance on the scope of interim injunctions in trade mark and copyright infringement matters.

Factual Background:Marico Limited is the registered proprietor of the trade marks “PARACHUTE”, “PARACHUTE ADVANSED”, and “PARACHUTE JASMINE”, among others, which have been in use since 1948. The Plaintiff’s products, especially edible and cosmetic coconut oils, are sold in a distinctive packaging involving a blue bottle, green-bordered flag device, broken coconut imagery, and white-colored font in stylized form. Over the years, Marico introduced various artistic modifications, all while preserving the essential features of its trade dress and branding, which have been granted statutory protection under both trade mark and copyright law.

The Plaintiff asserted that it enjoys immense goodwill and reputation in the market, evidenced by high sales turnover and promotional expenditure. Marico alleged that the Defendants launched a competing product line under the brand “COCOPLUS” and “COCOPLUS JASMINE,” using trade dress, packaging, bottles, and labels strikingly similar to Marico's registered marks, including the use of a blue container, broken coconut imagery, and flag devices.

Procedural Background:Marico first issued a cease-and-desist notice to the Defendants in February 2021, followed by another in April 2021. However, no response or corrective action was taken. Due to difficulties arising during the COVID-19 pandemic, Marico was unable to assess the extent of infringement. Upon rediscovery of the infringing products in the market in 2024, Marico initiated a commercial IP suit before the Bombay High Court. The Plaintiff also filed an interim application seeking injunctive relief to prevent ongoing infringement pending the final disposal of the suit.

The Defendants filed a written reply, claiming to be prior users of the “COCOPLUS” mark since 2005 and argued that their trade mark was registered and the packaging bore no resemblance to Marico’s registered marks. The Defendant also raised defences of delay, common trade usage, and lack of deceptive similarity.

Legal Issue:The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Defendants' use of the “COCOPLUS” and “COCOPLUS JASMINE” marks, along with the allegedly similar trade dress, bottle design, and packaging, infringed upon the Plaintiff’s registered trade marks and copyrights. A related question was whether the Defendants could rely on their own trade mark registration and the defence of delay to defeat Marico’s claim for interim relief.

Discussion on Judgments:The Plaintiff relied on multiple precedents to establish the standard of interim relief in cases of infringement. In Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd v. Bubalus Beverages, IA (L) No. 24055 of 2021 in COMIP Suit No. 448 of 2021, the Bombay High Court granted injunction despite prior registration by Defendant, highlighting the importance of actual use and trade dress similarity.

In Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., 2003 SCC OnLine Del 1005, the Delhi High Court emphasized the relevance of trade dress, overall visual appearance, and likelihood of confusion among illiterate consumers, ruling in favor of the prior user.

The landmark decision in Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90, was cited to assert that delay alone cannot defeat a claim for interim injunction in cases of fraudulent adoption.

The Plaintiff also cited Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. S. M. Associates, 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 143, and Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Pom a-Ex Products, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 7237, to assert that the copying of essential features of a registered mark constitutes infringement regardless of minor differences.

The Defendant, on the other hand, relied on Charak Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1192, to argue that delay and balance of convenience should defeat an injunction. The Court, however, found this inapplicable given the Plaintiff’s vigilance in asserting its rights.

The Supreme Court decision in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727, was invoked to argue the discretionary nature of interim relief, but again found unpersuasive in the face of prima facie evidence of copying.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:The Court found that the Defendants’ registered trade mark “COCOPLUS” was not in actual use in its registered form. Instead, the Defendants used packaging and trade dress nearly identical to the Plaintiff’s marks, including the use of blue-colored bottles, green-bordered flag devices, and the iconic broken coconut imagery.

The Court ruled that the defence under Section 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999—regarding permissible use under a registered mark—was unavailable since the Defendant was not using its registered version. The Court noted that trade mark rights also encompass trade dress and that essential features had been slavishly copied. The Defendant’s assertion of delay was rejected, citing Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. India Stationery Products Co., AIR 1990 Delhi 19, where it was held that delay unaccompanied by acquiescence is not a valid defence.

The Court emphasized that the visual similarity and structural mimicry were likely to confuse the public, thus constituting trade mark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. The Judge also noted the copyright infringement of the artistic elements used on the Plaintiff’s packaging.

Final Decision:The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Marico Limited. The Court restrained the Defendants from using the infringing marks, packaging, bottles, containers, or any other materials bearing similarities to Marico’s registered marks. Relief was granted under prayer clauses (a) to (f) as sought in the application. The interim order was stayed for four weeks to allow the Defendants to seek appellate relief, if so advised.

Law Settled in This Case:This case reinforces that mere registration of a trade mark does not immunize a party from liability for infringement if the actual use deviates and mimics another’s registered mark. It establishes that copying essential features of a registered trade mark and trade dress—even in the absence of literal word mark similarity—constitutes infringement. The decision affirms that delay without acquiescence is not a bar to injunctive relief and clarifies that the defence under Section 30(2)(e) is limited to actual use of the registered form. The Court further emphasized the necessity of protecting not only the proprietary rights of trade mark owners but also the interests of the consuming public.

Marico Limited Vs Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd.:Case Number:Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 32952 of 2024:Neutral Citation:2025:BHC-OS:9444:Date of Order:25 June 2025:Court:High Court of Judicature at Bombay:Judge:Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi