Manisha Yadav
On 25 June, 2025 the High Court of Bombay restrained the Defendants from infringing on Parachute registered marks pending the suit’s resolution. The Bench comprised of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the Defendant’s use of the Plaintiff’s trademark cannot be considered honest, as they have adopted a mark that is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark. This conduct, done with knowledge of the Plaintiff’s, so cannot be seen as legitimate adoption.
The Plaintiff (Marico ltd.) alleged infringement of its three registered Trademarks, Copyright in artistic work, and Passing off related to its products: “PARACHUTE,”“PARACHUTE ADVANSED,” and “PARACHUTE JASMINE/PARACHUTE ADVANSED JASMINE.” The mark “PARACHUTE’ has been in use since 1948 for Edible coconut oil, and “PARACHUTE ADVANSED” for hair oil since 2007 with “PARACHUTE ADVANSED GOLD” introduced in 2019.
In 2010, the Plaintiff opposed the Defendant’s trademark application for “UNIQ-PURE-COCO,” and also another application for “COCO-PLUS”.
In 2021, the Plaintiff discovered Oil products Sold by the Defendant and issued a two cease-and-desist notice against them, however, the Defendant failed to respond. A investigation conducted by the plaintiff revealed that the Defendant had fraudulently obtained a device mark registration.
The High Court, after hearing the Counsel, stated that even if the Defendant (Zee Hygine Products Pvt. Ltd.) has used the trademark since 2008, it doesn’t favor their case, especially since the Plaintiff appears to be the prior user.
And the Plaintiff’s opposition to the Defendant’s mark in 2010 indicates awareness of the Plaintiff’s Trademark.
The Court found that the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of trademark infringement, as the Defendant’s mark is deceptively similar, likely to cause Confusion among the public at large and suggesting an association with the Plaintiff’s Product. The copying of the Plaintiff’s distinctive elements, such as color and packaging, supports this concern.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that if interim relief is not granted, the Plaintiff may suffer irreparable harm. It clarified that the Plaintiff may seek interim relief for passing off after obtaining leave.
A four-week stay is in place for the Defendants to comply with the order.
Case Name: Marico Limited v. Zee Hygine Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Citation: 2025: BHC-OS:9444
Bench: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Click here to access the order
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com
