Introduction:

The Bombay High Court recently examined a trademark infringement dispute between Marico Limited and KLF Nirmal Industries Pvt. Ltd. over alleged similarities in packaging of their coconut oil products. In the matter of Marico Limited v. KLF Nirmal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Justice RI Chagla deliberated on an interim application seeking to vacate an ex-parte order restraining KLF Nirmal Industries from using packaging resembling that of Marico’s Parachute Coconut Oil.

Arguments:

Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, along with Advocates Shriraj Dhruv, Aastha Mehta, and Ronak Shah, represented KLF Nirmal Industries. They contended that Marico had prior knowledge of their product through a confidential Information Memorandum shared during investment discussions. KLF Nirmal alleged that Marico’s M&A team signed a confidentiality agreement and thus was aware of the impugned product.

Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam, supported by Advocates Hiren Kamod, Nishad Nadkarni, Aasif Navodia, Khushboo Jhunjhunwala, and Jaanvi Chopra, represented Marico. They argued that KLF Nirmal failed to substantiate their claims of prior knowledge. Marico emphasized that the similarities in packaging could confuse consumers, leading to damage to the brand’s goodwill.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice RI Chagla opined that KLF Nirmal’s evidence linking Marico’s knowledge with the allegedly infringing product was speculative and lacked substance. The court placed the burden of proof on KLF Nirmal, noting the insufficiency of evidence to establish Marico’s knowingly false or misleading statements. It dismissed KLF Nirmal’s application to vacate the ex-parte order, finding no merit and upholding the continuation of the injunction.