Bombay high court granted ad-interim relief to Parle by issuing injunctions to the future groups for copying the biscuit packaging stating “The similarity in the rival packaging/labels cannot be a matter of coincidence.”
The application was filed by Parle pvt.Ltd. in the Bombay high court against future consumer Ltd. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had infringed their copyright for which they asked for ad-interim relief against the defendant. The plaintiff submitted that they have been a reputed brand in the market and have been recognized as the most fast-moving consumer goods brand since 2010 and have been the world’s largest selling biscuit brand for their product Parle-G.
The plaintiff submitted that they had copyright and trade marks for names and packaging designs for their products “MONACO”, “KRACKERJACK” and “HIDE & SEEK” and were using the name and packaging design under all due permissions/licenses. The plaintiff contended that they have made efforts and spent money towards popularising their products and the consumers were able to distinct their product from other products due to the packaging. The plaintiff pertaining to the aforementioned fact argued that use of similar packaging by the defendant for their products of the same nature was an infringement of their copyrights and submitted the following photographs on record to point out to the court how the defendant copied the packaging/labels of the petitioner’s product in their impugned product packaging.
The court upon reviewing the above photographs that were produced by the plaintiff had no doubt that the defendant blatantly copied the packaging design of the plaintiff’s products and said “The labels/artworks/packaging/trade dresses of Defendants’ “CrackO”, “Kracker King” and “Peek-a-Boo” products are a reproduction of Plaintiffs’ Packaging used in respect of their “MONACO”, “KRACKJACK” and “HIDE & SEEK” products and/or reproductions of substantial parts thereof. It is apparent that Defendants must have had Plaintiffs’ products before them while designing the impugned packaging. The similarity in the rival packaging/labels cannot be a matter of coincidence.”
The court found that the plaintiff had a strong prima facie case since the defendants had no equities in their favor and the plaintiff had a balance of convenience. The court stated “In these circumstances, a strong prima facie case for the grant of ad-interim reliefs is made out. Unless reliefs, as prayed for, are granted, Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable injury.” Thus granting relief to the plaintiff by issuing an injunction order against the defendants.
The court-appointed Adv Shrinivas Bobde as a court commissioner and representative of the court receiver to enforce the order since the court receiver was unable to travel due to the covid-19 pandemic. The court also granted liberty to the defendants to apply for a variation of this order within 72 hours prior written notice to the Advocates for Plaintiffs since no one appeared for the defendants.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
