The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking suspension and removal of the copyright registration granted to the label of Everest Coconut Oil, holding that no case of infringement or deceptive similarity had been made out. In a matter involving allegations that the Everest label copied the iconic Parachute trade dress, the Court observed that “the petitioner’s contention that the product is similar is wholly untenable and cannot be sustained.”
The petitioner, a well-known manufacturer of consumer products including Parachute hair oil, approached the Court seeking removal of the copyright registration granted to the respondent for the artistic work used on the packaging of Everest Coconut Oil. The petitioner claimed that the respondent’s label copied the design and colour scheme of the Parachute label and had fraudulently obtained registration despite the petitioner’s prior copyrights and trademarks.
The respondent did not appear before the Court and was set ex parte. The Copyright Office was represented through counsel.
The petitioner argued that the respondent’s label was a colourable imitation of the Parachute label, featuring similar design elements such as the flag device, broken coconut device, and the blue-green colour combination. It was contended that the respondent concealed material facts regarding the petitioner’s prior registrations and had a previous history of imitation.
Counsel submitted that the impugned registration remained on the Copyright Register without sufficient cause and that the respondent’s adoption amounted to copyright infringement, passing off, and unfair competition.
In response to the petitioner’s earlier cease-and-desist notice, the respondent denied all allegations and asserted bona fide and independent adoption of the EVEREST mark. It was stated that the respondent had been manufacturing coconut oil since 2002 and using the EVEREST label since 2007, supported by its own copyright registration.
Examining the competing labels and materials on record, the Court held that while the petitioner’s product design was registered, the respondent’s label and colour scheme were also duly registered and approved. The Court noted that the petitioner’s allegation appeared to be an attempt to monopolise trade in coconut oil products. The Court observed, “A comparison of both products reveals variations in colour, distinct wordings, different marks, and differing descriptions.”
It held that the respondent’s packaging was “entirely distinct from that of the petitioner,” and emphasized that the use of blue colour in hair-oil packaging is common in the industry and cannot be exclusively claimed by one manufacturer.
Finding no evidence of imitation or deception, the High Court dismissed the petition seeking to suspend and expunge Copyright Registration. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Marico Limited Vs. Prahalad Rai Kedia & Anr.
Case No.: (T)OP(CR) No. 1 of 2024
Coram: Justice N. Senthilkumar
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Rupikaa Srinivasan, Shikha Sachdev
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Subbu Rangha Bharathi
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
