Marico Limited filed a commercial IP suit against M/s Minolta Natural Care and others for trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off concerning its hair oil products marketed under Parachute Jasmine/Advanced Jasmine since 2000 and Hair & Care since 1990, alleging defendants' Sangini Jasmine and Sangini Hair Protection products adopted deceptively similar logos, labels, packaging and trade dress; plaintiff holds registrations for composite device marks, claimed goodwill through sales and awards, discovered infringement in July 2016, issued cease and desist notice leading to failed settlement talks, rediscovered products in January 2021 and August 2025 despite assurances of discontinuation, and sought interim injunction restraining use of impugned marks and features.
The court rejected defendants' objections on territorial jurisdiction and limitation noting ongoing negotiations and steps taken by plaintiff averting laches, held that composite marks must be compared holistically including disclaimed elements for confusion assessment, found Jasmine not used descriptively by defendants but as trademark, dismissed publici juris defense for lack of evidence, determined overall visual and structural similarity likely to deceive average consumers, upheld prima facie case of infringement and piracy of artwork, irreparable harm to goodwill, and balance of convenience favoring plaintiff. The court granted the interim injunction in terms of prayers (a) to (f).
While assessing deceptive similarity in composite trademarks, the marks must be compared as a whole, including disclaimed or non-distinctive elements, as disclaimers do not enter the marketplace and do not preclude possibility of public confusion [ Para 43-45].
Under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, registration of a composite mark confers exclusive rights to the mark as a whole, but exclusivity in distinctive parts can be established aliunde even without separate registration, unless proven common to trade [Para 46-47].
Mere presence of shared generic or descriptive words in rival marks does not justify deceptive similarity; courts must holistically examine visual, phonetic, structural and conceptual elements for overall impression [Para 49].
Delay alone is not a defense in trademark infringement if plaintiff demonstrates active steps like notices and negotiations post-knowledge, as laches requires proof of acquiescence Para 53].
For interim injunction in IP cases, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm are assessed considering prior adoption, registration, deceptive similarity, unexplained adoption and potential goodwill dilution [ Para 54-55].
Case Title: Marico Limited Vs Minolta Natural Care :09.12.2025:Commercial IP (L) No.28094 of 2025:2025:2025:BHC-OS:24054:Bombay HC:Sharmila U. Deshmukh
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
