Summary
In the case of Marico Limited vs Minolta Natural Care, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks, logos, labels, packaging, and trade dress in relation to Jasmine and Hair and Care hair oil products. The court held that the defendants’ use of Jasmine and Hair Protection prominently on their products infringed the plaintiff’s registered trade marks and copyright and amounted to passing off. The court found that the overall trade dress and visual impression of the defendants’ products was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers.
Jasmine/Hair and Care Trade Mark Infringement, Copyright Infringement, and Passing Off Dispute
The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture and sale of hair oils marketed under the Parachute house mark, including Parachute Advansed Jasmine and Hair and Care hair oil products. The Parachute brand is a widely known brand in the hair oil market. The plaintiff adopted the Jasmine variant in or around the year 2000 and Hair and Care in the year 1990 and subsequently created distinctive logos, labels, packaging, and bottle shapes. The plaintiff holds multiple registrations for device marks and asserts copyright in the original artistic works used on the labels and packaging.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants manufactured and marketed hair oil products under the marks Sangini Jasmine and Sangini Hair Protection using labels, logos, color schemes, bottle shapes, and trade dress that were identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s Jasmine and Hair and Care products. After earlier cease and desist notices and failed settlement discussions, the plaintiff discovered continued use of the impugned products in 2025 and instituted the present suit seeking interim relief.
Questions Before the Court
- Whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit for trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
- Whether the suit was barred by limitation or delay.
- Whether the defendants’ use of Jasmine and Hair Protection infringed the plaintiff’s registered trade marks relating to Jasmine and Hair and Care.
- Whether the defendants’ labels and packaging amounted to infringement of copyright in the plaintiff’s original artistic works.
- Whether the defendants’ conduct amounted to passing off due to deceptive similarity in trade dress and overall visual appearance.
- Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim injunctive relief.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Plaintiff’s Arguments
The plaintiff contended that it is the registered proprietor of the Jasmine and Hair and Care device marks and the owner of copyright in the associated artistic works. It submitted that the essential and leading features of its marks include the stylized depiction of Jasmine and Hair and Care, the distinctive color scheme, the unique bottle shape, and the overall trade dress. The plaintiff argued that the defendants had copied these essential features in their Sangini Jasmine and Sangini Hair Protection products.
The plaintiff further submitted that Jasmine and Hair and Care were used by the defendants as trade marks and not descriptively, as evident from their prominent placement and stylized presentation. It argued that infringement and passing off are continuing causes of action and that delay is not a defense. The plaintiff also relied on its long standing use, sales figures, and reputation to establish goodwill.
Defendants’ Arguments
The defendants challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the court and contended that the suit was barred by delay, as the plaintiff was allegedly aware of the defendants’ products since 2016. The defendants argued that Jasmine is a generic and publici juris term and that the plaintiff had no exclusive rights over it. They contended that Sangini was the dominant feature of their products and that differences in labels, fonts, and placement were sufficient to distinguish their goods. The defendants also relied on disclaimers in the plaintiff’s trade mark registrations to argue against exclusivity.
Court’s Analysis
Jurisdiction and Limitation
The court stated that under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, jurisdiction lies where the plaintiff carries on business. Since the plaintiff’s principal place of business is in Mumbai, the court held that it had jurisdiction. The court further observed that infringement and passing off give rise to a recurring cause of action and are not barred by limitation.
Scope of the Plaintiff’s Rights
The court observed that the plaintiff’s registrations for Parachute Advansed Jasmine and Hair and Care device marks are valid and constitute prima facie evidence of statutory rights. According to the court, unless such registrations are shown to be invalid, the plaintiff is entitled to protection. The court also noted that there was no serious dispute regarding the plaintiff’s ownership of copyright in the original artwork.
Assessment of Deceptive Similarity
The court stated that infringement must be assessed by comparing the marks as a whole and by applying the anti dissection rule. According to the court, the test is whether the overall impression of the defendants’ products is likely to confuse an average consumer with imperfect recollection.
On a visual comparison, the court observed that the defendants’ Jasmine product used a similar white and blue color scheme, transparent bottle, blue cap, prominent stylized depiction of Jasmine, images of a model with jasmine flowers, and coconut imagery. The court stated that the word Jasmine was displayed prominently in a stylized manner similar to the plaintiff’s product, while the house mark Sangini was shown in a relatively negligible font.
In relation to Hair and Care, the court observed that the defendants used similar bottle shapes, green caps, placement of a model image, color stripes, and stylized emphasis on the word Hair. According to the court, the prominence given to Hair Protection mirrored the plaintiff’s Hair and Care presentation.
Use of Jasmine and Hair and Care
The court stated that the manner in which the defendants used Jasmine and Hair Protection showed use in a trade mark sense and not merely descriptively. It observed that disclaimers in the plaintiff’s registrations did not deprive the plaintiff of the right to protect the essential and leading features of its registered device marks.
Copyright and Passing Off
The court observed that for copyright infringement, it is sufficient if the impugned label or packaging constitutes a substantial reproduction of the original artwork. According to the court, the defendants’ labels reproduced the overall arrangement, color combination, and visual elements of the plaintiff’s artwork.
In relation to passing off, the court stated that the plaintiff had established goodwill and reputation through sales figures and long standing use. The court observed that the defendants failed to show that the added material was sufficient to distinguish their products. According to the court, the overall similarity amounted to misrepresentation likely to cause confusion and damage to the plaintiff’s goodwill.
Findings
The court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off in relation to Jasmine and Hair and Care products. It found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff and that irreparable harm would result if interim relief was denied. The court therefore granted interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks, logos, labels, packaging, bottles, and trade dress or any deceptively similar variants thereof.
Relevant Paras
Paragraphs 19 to 25 on jurisdiction and statutory rights.
Paragraphs 28 to 34 on deceptive similarity and comparison of trade dress.
Paragraphs 35 to 37 on consumer confusion and overall impression.
Paragraphs 38 to 40 on goodwill, misrepresentation, and passing off.
Case Citation
Marico Limited v. Minolta Natural Care, 2025:BHC-OS:24054.
Indian Kanoon link: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/25829428/ Visited on 24 December 2025.
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.