Trade Marks and passing off - Defendant injuncted using deceptively similar marks, logos, trade dress, and packaging

Bombay High Court Grants Injunction Against Minolta Natural Care for Trademark Infringement, Marico Limited's "Parachute Jasmine" and "Hair & Care" trademarks receive protection from deceptively similar products by Minolta Natural Care.

In a significant ruling by the Bombay High Court, an interim injunction has been granted in favor of Marico Limited against M/s. Minolta Natural Care and others, restraining them from using deceptively similar trademarks, logos, trade dress, and packaging that infringe upon Marico's well-known "Parachute Jasmine" and "Hair & Care" products. The decision, delivered by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, affirms Marico's statutory and common law rights over their registered trademarks.

The case revolves around Marico's claim of infringement and passing off against the defendants who marketed hair oil products under the name "Sangini Jasmine" and "Sangini Hair Protection," which were alleged to closely mimic Marico’s trademarked products. Marico argued that the defendants' products bore a striking resemblance in terms of color scheme, packaging design, and logo stylization, which could potentially confuse consumers.

The court held that Marico had established a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. It emphasized the importance of protecting the distinctiveness of Marico's trademarks, noting that the deceptive similarity between the products was likely to mislead consumers. The court also noted that Marico had demonstrated a significant goodwill and reputation in the market, further supporting the case for an injunction.

In its defense, Minolta Natural Care contended that the terms "Jasmine" and "Hair & Care" were generic and commonly used in the industry, and thus should not be monopolized. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the overall impression created by the infringing products was likely to cause confusion, regardless of the presence of common or generic elements in the trademarks.

The court also addressed the issue of delay in seeking relief, dismissing it as a non-defensive argument in cases of ongoing infringement. It highlighted Marico's proactive measures, such as cease-and-desist notices and attempts at settlement, demonstrating diligence despite the delay.

The ruling underscores the court's commitment to enforcing intellectual property rights and preventing unfair competition. By granting the injunction, the court aims to protect Marico's brand identity and prevent any potential harm to its reputation and consumer trust.

Bottom Line:

Trade Marks - Infringement and passing off - Interim injunction granted against Defendant for using deceptively similar marks, logos, trade dress, and packaging as Plaintiff's registered trade marks - Plaintiff demonstrated prima facie case, goodwill, and balance of convenience in its favor.

Statutory provisions: Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 17, 30, 134; Copyright Act, 1957 Section 62

Marico Limited v. M/s. Minolta Natural Care, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2820376