Recently, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday restrained Zee Hygiene Products Pvt Ltd from using packaging, trade dress, and labels that appeared prima facie deceptively similar to those of Marico’s iconic Parachute hair oil brand.

The Court’s order specifically targets Zee’s “Cocoplus” range of hair oils, barring the company from mimicking the distinctive visual identity of Parachute — including the bottle shape, colour scheme, and design elements.

Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, while granting the injunction, noted prima facie infringement and observed that the defendants had adopted a trade dress “structurally and visually similar” to Marico’s. She remarked:

“The Defendant’s product, when compared, shows that essential features of the Plaintiff’s trademark — including the flag device with a coconut tree, two broken coconuts with oil oozing out, and the distinct colour combination of blue, green and white — have been slavishly copied in a manner that brings it deceptively close to the Plaintiff’s mark.”

Marico had approached the court alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and copyrighted artistic works, triggered by the marketing of Zee’s Cocoplus hair oil that allegedly copied Parachute’s branding, bottle design, and packaging.

Zee Hygiene, in its defence, claimed that “Cocoplus” was an independently registered trademark in use since 2005, and any similarity was either coincidental or due to the use of generic elements common across the hair oil industry.

However, Marico’s counsel countered this by arguing that Zee had not actually used the trademark as registered. Instead, the defendant allegedly adopted near-identical visual elements from Marico’s branding, including the two broken coconuts with oil — a key component of the Parachute trademark. The defence’s use of its registered mark was characterized as “fraudulent,” disqualifying it from statutory protection.

The Court concurred with Marico’s contention, noting that Zee had departed from its registered device mark and adopted features that were prima facie deceptively similar to Marico’s branding. The Court rejected Zee’s claim that the copied elements were generic.

Citing legal precedents, the Court emphasized that trademark infringement is assessed based on the overall visual impression on an average consumer, not on a side-by-side comparison or an analysis of individual elements:

“The words ‘likely to deceive’ are determined at first impression — it is unnecessary to prove intent. The test is visual — an appeal to the eye. Judged thus, the Plaintiff’s marks and trade dress are structurally and visually similar to that of the Defendant.”

Finding Zee’s use of the disputed branding dishonest and likely to mislead consumers and dilute Marico’s brand identity, the Court granted interim relief in Marico’s favour.

However, a four-week stay on the operation of the order has been granted to allow Zee Hygiene time to file an appeal.

Legal Representation:

• For Marico Limited: Advocates Hiren Kamod, Nishad Nadkarni, Aasif Navodia, Khushboo Jhunjhunwala, Jaanvi Chopra, and Rakshita Singh.

• For Zee Hygiene Products: Advocate Harsh Desai.