📘 Introduction:
On June 25, 2025, the Bombay High Court delivered a strong verdict protecting iconic brand identity in the fast-moving consumer goods sector. The Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Marico Ltd., restraining Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. from using deceptively similar packaging and trade dress that resembled the popular “Parachute” hair oil bottles.
🔖 Case Details:
Case Title: Marico Limited v. Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 32952 of 2024
Interim Application No.: 33099 of 2024
Court: Bombay High Court (Commercial Division)
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Order Date: June 25, 2025
📂 Background & Key Facts:
- Marico owns the ‘Parachute’, ‘Parachute Advansed’, and ‘Parachute Jasmine’ brands — trademarks registered since 1948, with iconic blue bottles, a flag device, and broken coconut imagery.
- Zee Hygiene launched a hair oil under the mark ‘Cocoplus’ with a similar blue bottle, coconut images, and packaging layout.
- Marico alleged Zee was imitating trade dress, causing consumer confusion and riding on brand goodwill.
- Despite having a registered mark, the defendant’s actual used packaging differed from what was registered.
❓ Key Legal Issues:
- Does Zee’s product amount to trademark and copyright infringement of Marico’s Parachute series?
- Can prior registration protect the defendant if their actual packaging deviates from the registered mark?
-Is delay in filing the suit a valid defense in trademark infringement cases?
⚖️ Court’s Reasoning & Findings:
- Zee’s packaging was “visually and structurally similar” to Parachute’s iconic trade dress.
- The Court emphasized that even registered marks cannot protect use if actual packaging is deceptively different from registration.
- Defendant’s use of blue bottle, broken coconut device, and flag-style branding showed dishonest adoption of essential visual features.
The defense of delay was rejected. Courts reiterated:
“Delay without acquiescence is not a valid defense in an infringement action.”
📜 Judgment Summary:
- Bombay HC granted an interim injunction restraining Zee Hygiene from:
- Using COCOPLUS products in confusingly similar packaging
- Imitating Parachute’s label, coconut imagery, bottle shape, and trade dress
-Reproducing copyrighted artistic elements
The Court cited previous judgments like Colgate v. Anchor, Midas Hygiene v. Sudhir Bhatia, and Skol Breweries v. Som Distilleries to support its conclusions.
🔑 Key Takeaways for Brand Owners:
✅ Trademark + Trade Dress = Dual protection
✅ Even if a competitor has a trademark, actual packaging matters
🛡️ File cease and desist notices and act legally — delay isn’t fatal if proactive
📸 Preserve your product's artistic design, shape, and colors as protected IP assets
💡 Pro Tip:
✔️ Trademark registration isn't enough — monitor market usage regularly
✔️ File for copyright protection for logos, label art, bottle designs
✔️ Document your design evolution and sales proofs for stronger enforcement
📲 SecureMyTM Can Help You:
- Conduct trade dress protection audits
- Draft strong packaging-based copyright claims
- File cease & desist + court relief petitions
- Assist in design + trademark + copyright strategy
📌 Standard Disclaimer:
This blog is for legal awareness and educational purposes. For expert IP and brand protection services, contact our legal team at SecureMyTM.com.
