Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar dismissed a petition filed by Marico Limited, the manufacturer of Parachute Coconut Oil, seeking cancellation of the copyright registration issued to Kedia Industries for the label of Everest Coconut Oil. The Court held on November 11 that the petitioner had not shown infringement, observing that the two labels differed in their overall presentation and could not be regarded as deceptively similar. Concluding that the respondent’s artistic work was independently adopted and that no ground existed to remove the registration, the Bench declined to suspend or expunge the entry from the copyright register.

Marico Limited, a manufacturer of Parachute Coconut Oil and other consumer products, filed a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 seeking suspension and removal of a 2009 copyright registration granted to Kedia Industries for the artistic label used on Everest Coconut Oil. Marico stated that it held earlier copyright and trademark registrations for its Parachute label and claimed that the respondent’s artwork reproduced essential elements of its packaging, including the colour scheme, devices, and overall trade dress.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Jharkhand Government To Declare Saranda AS Wildlife Sanctuary; All Rights Of Tribals And Forest Dwellers Shall Stand Protected

The petitioner asserted that the respondent obtained registration without disclosing these prior rights and that the impugned label was neither original nor independently created. It relied on its copyright and trademark certificates, past enforcement actions, and a cease-and-desist notice issued to the respondent.

The record also contained a written reply from Kedia Industries issued in 2016, stating that it had been manufacturing coconut oil since 2002 and had adopted the Everest label in 2007. The respondent maintained that its artistic work was independently conceived, used continuously, and supported by a valid copyright certificate. The Court further noted that the Registrar of Copyrights had approved the respondent’s registration and colour scheme.

The Court recorded that the petitioner’s primary contention was that the respondent’s product was “deceptively similar” and that the colour, coconut tree description, broken coconut and design were part of the petitioner’s registered mark. It noted that a cease-and-desist notice had been issued by the petitioner on 17.06.2016 and that the respondent had sent a reply denying the allegations.

The Court stated that the petitioner had extracted comparative depictions in the pleadings “for the sake of clarity.” After referring to these images, the Court observed that there was “no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner product's name, colour, design are registered one.”

However, the Court also recorded that the first respondent’s product bore a registered device mark and that “its colour has been duly approved by the 2nd respondent.” On this basis, it stated that “the petitioner’s allegation of infringement by the 1st respondent appears to be an attempt to monopolise trade in the field of coconut oil.”

The Court noted its comparison between the two products and recorded that it “reveals variations in colour, distinct wordings, different marks, and differing descriptions.” It further stated that “the petitioner has failed to establish infringement by the 1st respondent.”

The Court referred to the respondent’s reply letter dated 04.07.2016 and observed that the respondent had claimed to be manufacturing and marketing coconut oil since 2002, using the Everest trademark since 2006 and adopting the corresponding label in 2007. The Court recorded that the respondent had asserted continuous use, bona fide adoption, and independent creation of the artistic work, supported by Registration No. A-85790/2009.

The Court then recorded its finding that “the 1st respondent's label and packaging are entirely distinct from those of the petitioner.” It further stated that “the use of blue colour in the packaging of hair oils is common in the trade and cannot be claimed exclusively by any single manufacturer.”

Also Read: Madras High Court Refers To Larger Bench Question On Post-Retirement Verification Of Community Certificates

It finally observed that the petitioner had not produced “supporting materials to establish infringement by the 1st respondent,” and that the contention that the respondent’s product was similar to that of the petitioner was “wholly untenable and cannot be sustained.”

The Court directed: “the petitioner’s contention that the 1st respondent’s product is similar to that of the petitioner is wholly untenable and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. “o costs.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupikaa Srinivasan

For the Respondents: Mr. Subbu Rangha Bharathi

Case Title: Marico Limited v. Prahalad Rai Kedia & Another
Case Number: (T) OP (CR) No. 1 of 2024
Bench: Justice N. Senthilkumar