Overall Impression Matters’: Bombay High Court Restrains Copycat Trade Dress of Parachute Jasmine
Overall Impression Matters’: Bombay High Court Restrains Copycat Trade Dress of Parachute Jasmine
Introduction
The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief in favour of Marico Limited, restraining a rival manufacturer from using packaging and bottle designs found to be deceptively similar to Marico’s well-known Parachute Jasmine and Hair & Care hair oil products. The Court emphasised that, for daily-use consumer goods, overall visual impression and trade dress play a decisive role in assessing likelihood of confusion.
Factual Background
Marico has been marketing its Parachute Jasmine hair oil since 2000 and Hair & Care hair oil since 1990. The products are identified by distinctive features including a blue-and-white bottle, jasmine-flower artwork, the Parachute flag device, stylised typography, and a characteristic bottle shape. Over decades of use, extensive sales, and sustained advertising, Marico asserted that these elements have acquired strong goodwill and consumer recognition.
The dispute arose when Marico discovered hair oil products sold under the brands “Sangini Jasmine” and “Sangini Hair Protection” by Minolta Natural Care. According to Marico, these products replicated nearly every essential visual element of its own trade dress, creating an overall look closely resembling Parachute Jasmine and Hair & Care.
Procedural Background
Marico instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Bombay High Court alleging trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off. It sought interim injunctive relief to restrain the continued sale of the allegedly infringing products. The matter was heard by a single-judge Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, which passed the interim order on December 9, 2025.
Issues
1. Whether Minolta’s packaging and bottle design were deceptively similar to Marico’s registered trade dress.
2. Whether such similarity was likely to cause confusion among consumers of hair oil, a daily-use product.
3. Whether delay, descriptiveness of certain words, or territorial jurisdiction barred grant of interim relief.
Contentions of the Parties
Marico contended that Minolta had copied the overall look and feel of its products, including colour schemes, bottle shape, artwork placement, and stylised wording, amounting to misrepresentation and unfair riding on Marico’s goodwill. It relied on its longstanding use, trademark registrations, copyright ownership, and market reputation.
Minolta denied infringement, arguing that Marico had delayed approaching the Court, that words such as “Jasmine” and “Hair” were descriptive, that its brand name “Sangini” was sufficiently distinguishing, and that the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court rejected Minolta’s preliminary objections, holding that infringement is a continuing wrong and that Marico, being headquartered in Mumbai, was entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act.
On merits, the Court compared the rival products as a whole and found them prima facie deceptively similar. It noted that both parties dealt in identical goods and hair oil and that Minolta’s products adopted the same blue-and-white colour scheme, similar bottle shapes, comparable artwork and imagery, and closely resembling stylisation for the jasmine variant. The Court observed that the “Sangini” brand name appeared in a relatively smaller font, increasing the risk that an average consumer would be misled.
The Court held that such consumers are unlikely to undertake a minute examination of packaging when purchasing everyday products. The overall impression conveyed by Minolta’s packaging was therefore likely to cause confusion and association with Marico’s established brands. The Court further found no credible explanation for Minolta’s adoption of such closely similar trade dress, suggesting intentional imitation.
Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed Marico’s interim application and restrained Minolta Natural Care and its associated entities from using the impugned marks, logos, labels, bottles, trade dress, or any packaging identical or deceptively similar to Marico’s Parachute Jasmine and Hair & Care products, pending further orders in the suit.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Hiren Kamod a/w. Mr. Nishad Nadkarni, Mr. Aasig Navodia, Ms. Khushboo Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Rakshita Singh, Ms. Jaanvi Chopra i/b. Khaitan & Co.
