The Bombay High Court restrained “Cocoplus” hair oils from using look-alike blue bottles, labels, and overall get-up that mimic Marico’s iconic Parachute range. The Court treated trade dress (colour + bottle shape + label layout) as a protectable source-identifier and called out the defendant’s deviation from its own registered mark to get closer to Parachute. Interim injunction granted, with a short stay to allow appeal.
Also Read : Pharma Trademarks & Public Health: The IMOX vs. INIMOX Verdict Explained
Why this case matters (for founders, in-house teams, and litigators)
- Trade dress carries real teeth: Colour + shape + label can be protected when consumers link that overall look to you.
- Registration ≠ immunity: A defendant’s own registration doesn’t excuse how it is actually used, especially if usage edges toward a rival’s famous look.
- Fast, practical relief is possible: Clear side-by-side similarity can yield an interim injunction even before trial.
Case snapshot
- Case: Marico Limited v. Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Parachute v. Cocoplus)
- Court/Bench: Bombay High Court (IPD), Single Judge (Deshmukh, J.)
- Date: June 26, 2025 (order reported June 26–July 2, 2025)
- Posture: Interim injunction (with a four-week stay to enable appellate recourse).
Factual background
Marico’s Parachute, Parachute Advansed, and Parachute Jasmine lines are long-standing market leaders, sold in a distinctive blue bottle with recognisable label elements. In 2021, Marico discovered that “Cocoplus” oils launched with the same category cues: blue bottles, similar label layout, and bottle contours, creating a near-instant association with Parachute on a casual glance. Cease-and-desist steps failed, leading to a suit for infringement (marks and trade dress), passing off, and copyright.
Also Read : Trademark Prior Rights and Use vs Global Fame – Burger King Case Study
Legal issues
- Whether Cocoplus’s packaging, bottle shape, and colour scheme are deceptively similar to Parachute’s trade dress.
- Whether a defendant can rely on its own registration when its market usage deviates to a form closer to the plaintiff’s look.
- Whether delay/acquiescence defeats interim relief in a clear trade dress case.
The Court’s reasoning (what convinced the judge)
- Overall impression test, not piece-by-piece nit-picking. The Court looked at what an average shopper would think at first glance. The totality—blue bottle, bottle shape, label placement—skewed too close to Parachute. That proximity suggested a deliberate attempt to ride on Marico’s goodwill.
- Use beats paper: Having a registration is not a shield if the defendant’s actual usage deviates from its registered label and moves toward the rival’s get-up. The defendant’s adoption was not “honest”.
- Confusion and harm are built into trade dress copying. Loss of control over brand image and goodwill is presumed; monetary damages can’t repair look-alike confusion at the shelf. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury favoured Marico.
- Delay won’t rescue a copier. In clear cases of imitation, mere lapse of time does not defeat injunction—particularly where bad-faith adoption is evident.
Also Read : Beating “Descriptive Use”: Five Packaging Mistakes That Hand Plaintiffs a Win
Conclusion (the operative order)
The High Court restrained Cocoplus from using labels, packaging, bottles, or trade dress deceptively similar to Parachute pending trial. The order was granted with a brief, four-week stay for appellate steps—signalling strong prima facie rights, but leaving room for review.
Also Read : Keyword Advertising & Confusion: Decoding the MakeMyTrip vs. Booking.com Saga
Case timeline
- Long prior use & registrations for Parachute trade marks and packaging.
- 2021: Marico detects Cocoplus in market; issues notices.
- 2025 (June): Suit + Interim Application; side-by-side materials placed.
- 2025 (June 26): Interim injunction granted; 4-week stay noted.
Litigation flow
Evidence pack → Pleadings → Side-by-side exhibits → Legal tests → Relief
- Gather proof of your distinct get-up (sales, ads, surveys, product photos across years) →
- File plaint + IA for injunction (infringement, passing off; add copyright if label art) →
- Show the shelf reality (photographs, videos, comparison boards) →
- Argue the triad: (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, (iii) irreparable harm →
- Win workable orders (injunction; packaging recall/inventory directions; time-bound stay to avoid surprise).
Also Read : Anti-Dissection vs. Dominant Part: Under Armour’s Landmark Victory at the Delhi High Court
Comparison table: what tipped the scales
| Element | Parachute | Cocoplus (impugned) | Court’s take |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bottle colour & silhouette | Blue, distinctive contours | Blue, contours closely echoing | Overall look likely to mislead on casual glance |
| Label architecture | Placement, fonts, visual balance identified with Parachute | Near-parallel layout | Side-by-side similarity evident |
| Word mark usage | PARACHUTE (various sub-brands) | COCO+ / Cocoplus | Suffix/variants don’t cure copying of overall get-up |
| Consistency with own registration | N/A | Deviated from its registered label | Registration didn’t immunize actual infringing usage |
Action checklist: building a trade dress case (and defence) the right way
For brand owners (plaintiffs):
- Lock visual identity early: colour palettes, bottle/pack shapes, label grids; document continuous use.
- Keep a “lookbook” archive (dated artworks, pack evolutions, POS photos).
- Commission confusion snapshots (in-store photos, videos of shelf scanning) and maintain an evidence diary (first seen dates, dealer reports).
- Plead trade mark + passing off + copyright (if label art is original).
- Ask for search/seizure or neutral verification where counterfeiting is suspected (see Prince Pipes v. Prince Platinum, where the Court appointed a Receiver).
Also Read : E-Infringement Exposed: The Landmark Amazon vs. Beverly Hills Polo Club Ruling and Its Broader Impact
For defendants (risk-minimising):
- Do a pre-launch clearance for both name and get-up.
- Avoid “near-brand” shortcuts (borrowing rival colour + silhouette + label map).
- Align market usage with your registered artwork; don’t “drift” toward a rival’s presentation.
- If genuinely descriptive, use the descriptor non-prominently and avoid it as a badge of origin (courts see through “thin” descriptiveness claims).
Related Mumbai IPD cases you should know
- Restaurant names: Impresario (SOCIAL) v. Social Tribe — using the entire famous mark with a generic suffix (“TRIBE”) still infringes; ex parte interim relief granted.
- Counterfeits & raids: Prince Pipes v. Prince Platinum — clear piracy of the core word mark justified ad-interim injunction and appointment of a Court Receiver to raid premises.
Takeaway: When courts see wholesale imitation, they move fast.
Skeptic check (how not to over-read this ruling)
- Colour alone isn’t a monopoly. Protection flowed from the overall get-up and market association, not from “blue” in isolation. Your evidence must show that the combination signals your source. (Live Law)
- Interim ≠ final. This is a prima facie view pending trial; expect a full merits battle on distinctiveness, honest adoption, and survey/market evidence. (Live Law)
About the Author
Suresh Kumar, Advocate, is the Managing Attorney at Unimarks Legal Solutions, Chennai. Practising since 2008, he focuses on trademark infringement and passing off, appeals from the Registrar, rectification, and online/platform enforcement before the Madras High Court (IPD), Commercial Courts, and District Courts across Tamil Nadu. His practice spans IPR and corporate law, with a courtroom-first approach grounded in robust pleadings and evidence—particularly for interim relief and post-order enforcement. Suresh frequently speaks on IP law at industrial forums and universities and is associated with SICCI, CII, and the Tamil Nadu Chamber of Commerce.
This article is for information and education. It is not legal advice, does not create a lawyer–client relationship, and avoids case-specific recommendations. Conflicts are screened per firm policy before any engagement.
