Facts
The petitioner, Marico Limited, is a well-known Indian consumer goods company that has been manufacturing and selling several popular products for decades, including Parachute, Parachute Advansed Jasmine, Hair & Care, Nihar, Saffola, Mediker, Livon, Revive, Silk-n-Shine, and Set Wet. In particular, Marico’s coconut oil brand PARACHUTE is widely recognised for its distinctive packaging label, including the flag device logo, the broken coconut symbol, the blue and green colour combination, and the overall trade dress and layout used for many years.
Marico Limited Vs Prahalad Rai …
Marico holds prior copyright registration for this label under Copyright Registration No. A-64997/2003, along with multiple trademark registrations for the artistic representation used on its packaging. Marico alleged that the first respondent, Prahalad Rai Kedia, proprietor of Kedia Industries, secured Copyright Registration No. A-85790/2009 in respect of packaging and label for EVEREST Coconut Oil by copying and imitating features of Marico’s PARACHUTE label.
Marico Limited Vs Prahalad Rai …
Marico contended that the Everest label copied the essential features of the Parachute label and that the respondent concealed the existence of Marico’s prior copyright and trademark when applying for registration. According to Marico, this amounted to fraudulent registration, copyright infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. Marico also submitted that the respondent had previously copied Parachute packaging in 2002 under the brand SHRI LAXMI and continued to imitate the label even after receiving cease-and-desist notices.
Marico Limited Vs Prahalad Rai …
Procedural History
Marico filed a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking suspension and expunction of Copyright Registration No. A-85790/2009 from the Copyright Register. Because the first respondent did not appear despite notice, he was set ex parte on 14 August 2025. The second respondent, the Registrar of Copyrights, appeared and defended the grant of registration.
Marico Limited Vs Prahalad Rai …
Core Dispute
The central legal question before the Court was whether the artistic work forming the packaging label for EVEREST Coconut Oil was a substantial reproduction or imitation of the PARACHUTE packaging label, such that the registration obtained by the first respondent should be removed under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
In other words, the Court had to decide whether the EVEREST label infringed Marico’s copyright and should therefore be expunged from the Copyright Register.
Judicial Reasoning and Analysis
Justice N. Senthilkumar reviewed Marico’s submissions, the comparative images of both labels, the cease-and-desist notice of 17 June 2016, and the first respondent’s reply dated 4 July 2016.
The Court acknowledged that Marico holds trademark and copyright protection for its artistic label and has been continuously using the PARACHUTE trade dress for many decades. It also noted that the Delhi High Court has previously restrained various third parties from infringing or copying Marico’s trade dress and trademarks in earlier matters.
Marico Limited Vs Prahalad Rai …
However, the Court emphasised that the question in the present petition was not whether Marico owns valid intellectual property rights, but whether the EVEREST packaging label amounts to copyright infringement and therefore warrants expunction of its registration.
The Court compared both labels and observed variations in colour scheme, wording, trade descriptions and logo elements. It found that while both labels used a blue background, the use of blue in hair oil packaging is extremely common in the market and cannot be monopolised by any single manufacturer. The Court held that the overall artistic expression of the respondent’s label is distinct, with a different layout and visual identity.
Marico Limited Vs Prahalad Rai …
The first respondent’s reply dated 4 July 2016 was also examined, where the respondent asserted that the EVEREST brand has been used since 2006 with a corresponding label adopted in 2007, and that the adoption was bona fide, honest and independent. The respondent relied on its own copyright registration in support of this claim. The Court noted that Marico did not produce sufficient evidence to counter the respondent’s assertion of originality.
Marico Limited Vs Prahalad Rai …
On evaluating the issue of infringement, the Court held that Marico failed to produce convincing comparative material showing that the EVEREST label is a direct or substantial copy of the PARACHUTE label. The Court concluded that Marico’s effort appeared to be an attempt to monopolise the trade of coconut oil by relying on similarities that were generic to the industry rather than unique to its brand.
Marico Limited Vs Prahalad Rai …
Based on the evidence placed on record, the Court held that Marico did not satisfy the legal burden required under Section 50 of the Copyright Act for removal of a registered copyright. The respondent’s work could not be considered a pirated reproduction.
Decision
The High Court dismissed Marico’s petition. It held that the EVEREST packaging label was not deceptively similar to the PARACHUTE packaging label and therefore did not infringe Marico’s copyright. As a result, there was no ground to suspend or expunge the first respondent’s copyright registration No. A-85790/2009 from the Copyright Register. No costs were awarded.
Marico Limited Vs. Prahalad Rai Kedia & Another
Order Date: 11 November 2025
Case Number: (T)OP(CR) No. 1 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:— (as reflected on order pages)
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Hon’ble Judge: Justice N. Senthilkumar
When Similarity Is Not Infringement: The Madras High Court’s Approach in Marico v. Prahalad Rai Kedia
Copyright Rectification under Section 50: A Critical Review of Judicial Thresholds
Trade Dress Protection vs. Market Competition: Lessons from the 2025 Marico Packaging Dispute
How Courts Balance Brand Identity and Free Market Use in Consumer Product Labels
Copyright Registration Cannot Be Removed Without Proof of Copying: A Study of (T)OP(CR) No. 1 of 2024
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
