Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Bombay, Single Bench of Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh has granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using hair-oil labels, packaging, and bottle/container designs that, on a prima facie comparison, were found to create a misleading similarity with the plaintiff’s Parachute Jasmine/Parachute Advansed Jasmine and Hair & Care trade dress and logos. The order, passed on December 9, 2025, directs the defendants to stop using the impugned marks, artwork, and trade dress on their “Sangini Jasmine” and “Sangini Hair Protection” products, including any similar variants, pending further proceedings. The dispute concerns allegations of trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off arising from the defendants’ marketing of competing hair oils with a similar overall get-up.

This matter concerns an action for infringement of trademark, copyright, and passing off relating to the plaintiff’s hair oil products marketed under the trademarks Parachute Jasmine/Parachute Advansed Jasmine and Hair & Care. The plaintiff asserted long-standing adoption of these marks, creation of original artistic works forming the Jasmine Logo and Hair & Care stylised representation, and registration of related device marks. The plaintiff stated that its packaging, trade dress, and distinctive bottles underwent minor revisions but retained essential features. The plaintiff relied on sales figures, advertising expenditures, and awards to demonstrate reputation.

Also Read: POSH Act | Woman May Approach ICC Of Her Own Workplace Against Sexual Harassment By Employee Of Another Organisation : Supreme Court

The plaintiff stated that in July 2016 it came across oil products of the defendants under the mark Sangini bearing labels/packaging that allegedly infringed its rights. Cease-and-desist notices were issued, and discussions occurred regarding revision of labels, but no settlement was reached. In January 2021 the plaintiff again encountered the impugned products, followed by correspondence regarding discontinuance, though the products allegedly continued in the market. In August 2025 the plaintiff encountered two impugned hair oil products—Sangini Jasmine and Sangini Hair Protection—which it asserted infringed its statutory and common law rights. The plaintiff sought interim relief.

The defendants raised contentions regarding territorial jurisdiction, limitation, disclaimers, alleged descriptive use of “Jasmine,” composite mark protection under Section 17, prior user claim, and asserted distinguishing features. Defendant No. 3 argued lack of urgency, delay, and absence of exclusivity over the words Jasmine and Hair & Care. The plaintiff disputed these assertions and maintained continuing cause of action and deceptive similarity between the rival products.

On the preliminary objections, the Court recorded that “the infringement of trade mark, copyright and passing off gives rise to recurring cause of action to the Plaintiff.” It also noted that “Once the appearance has been caused by Defendant No. 3, formal service of writ of summons is not mandatory.”

On the scope of the plaintiff’s claim, the Court stated, “It is the totality of the device marks of Parachute Advansed Jasmine and Hair & Care device marks which is stated to be infringed and not any individual element thereof.” It further recorded, “Unless the registrations are demonstrated to be invalid, the statutory protection is required to be extended to the registered trade marks giving the Plaintiff the exclusive right to use the registered trade marks and to obtain relief against the infringement.”

In setting out the comparison standard, the Court observed that “Once it is shown that there is deceptively similarity, the registration by itself affords the right to seek protection and no further evidence of confusion or deception is necessary.” It also recorded, “It is well settled that the consideration of aspect of deceptive similarity requires comparison of the marks as wholes i.e. the anti-dissection rule.”

On consumer perception in everyday goods, the Court stated, “This is especially applicable in case of daily use products as the relevant consumers base may not pay particular attention to each and every component of the marks and is most likely to be swayed by the general impression conveyed by the marks.” It also recorded that “a granular comparison of the trademarks is not contemplated and what applies is the test of first impression.”

Applying the overall comparison, the Court recorded, “Prima facie upon comparison of the rival products and by applying the overall similarity test and the anti dissection rule, in my view, the impugned marks are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s marks and are depicted in trade dress/layout which is substantial reproduction of the Plaintiff’s original artwork.” It further stated, “The placement of the elements of the label mark, the colour combination, the stylized representation of the mark are deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion amongst the relevant consumer base.”

On the defendants’ statutory defences, the Court recorded, “The defense of the marks, being publici juris and common to the trade dis-entitling the Plaintiff to seek any exclusive right in view of Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 must fail.” It also stated that the descriptive-use defence was “unacceptable as the word “Jasmine” is not used by the Defendants in descriptive sense,” adding that “the prominence with which the Jasmine is depicted on the packaging indicates that the same is used in the trade mark sense.”

On delay and interim relief factors, the Court recorded, “delay by itself is not a defence to an infringement action.” It then stated, “The well settled legal principles governing the grant of injunction are making out a prima facie case, likelihood of confusion, relative merits of the parties claims, balance of convenience, risk of irreparable harm and public interest,” and recorded that “The impugned marks are prima facie deceptively similar to the registered trade marks and are depicted in artworks which are substantial reproduction of the original artworks.”

Also Read: Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-MNS Leader Accused Of Assaulting Lawyer In Marathi Language Row

The Court directed: “Leave under Clause XIV of Letters Patent(Bombay) is granted for combining the cause of action for passing off with the cause of action for infringement of trade mark and copyright. In light of the above, Interim application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (f).”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Applicant/Plaintiff: Mr. Hiren Kamod, Mr. Nishad Nadkarni, Mr. Aasig Navodia, Ms. Khushboo Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Rakshita Singh, Ms. Jaanvi Chopra, instructed by Khaitan & Co.

For the Respondent:Mr. Anil Goel.

Case Title: Marico Limited vs. M/s. Minolta Natural Care and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-OS:24054

Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 28667 of 2025 in Commercial IP (L) No. 28094 of 2025, with Leave Petition (L) No. 28708 of 2025                                                                    

 Bench: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh