CASE NAME: Marico Limited v. Prahalad Rai Kedia
CASE NUMBER : (T)OP(CR) No. 1 of 2024
COURT: High Court of Madras
DATE : 11 November 2025
QUORUM: Justice N. Senthilkumar
FACTS
The Petitioner Marico Limited, is a company incorporated in 1988 under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the manufacture and sale of well-known consumer products viz., PARACHUTE, PARACHUTE ADVANCED JASMINE, and so on. The Petitioner holds prior copyright registration and multiple trade mark registrations, all of which predate the 1st Respondent’s registration and the same has been used extensively and continuously since 1948 by the Petitioner and its predecessors, Bombay Oil Industries Limited. The present petition is filed under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking removal or rectification of Copyright Registration No.A-85790/2009 dated 01.06.2009 granted in favour of the 1st Respondent, in respect of the artistic work used on the packaging of EVEREST COCONUT OIL
ISSUES
- Whether the artistic label used by the respondent for its “Everest Coconut Oil” product is deceptively similar to, or constitutes an infringement of, the petitioner’s copyrighted artistic work used in the “Parachute” label.
- Whether Copyright Registration No. A-85790/2009, obtained by the respondent for the Everest label, was wrongly granted and is fraudulently remaining on the Register so as to warrant rectification under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 13(1)(a) of Copyrights Act, 1957 deals with copyright protection for original artistic works.
- Section 45(1) deals with the requirements for application for registration of copyright, including disclosure of relevant facts.
- Section 50 deals with the power of the High Court to correct the Register of Copyrights by rectifying an entry wrongly made or wrongly remaining on record.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER :
The Petitioner contended that the 1st Respondent has concealed material facts and misrepresented the originality of his work and it is this way that he has obtained registration in violation of Section 45(1) of the Copyright Act. and he has failed to disclose the existence of the Petitioner’s prior trade mark registrations. It was also contended that this conduct amounts to copyright infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, as the impugned label replicates the essential features of the PARACHUTE label and deceives the public into believing that the 1st Respondent’s product originated from or is associated with the Petitioner. This impugned registration has undermined the legislative intent of protecting only original artistic works under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. The Petitioner, has therefore prayed to suspend and cancel the impugned Copyright Registration No.A-85790/2009 from the Register.
RESPONDENT:
The 1st respondent was set ex parte on 14.08.2025 by order of this Court.
ANALYSIS
It was observed by the Court that in the same way as the Petitioner product’s name, colour, design were registered, the 1st Respondent’s product mark is also a registered device mark, and its colour has been duly approved by 2nd Respondent. Therefore, the petitioner’s allegation of infringement by the 1st Respondent appears to be an attempt to monopolise trade in the field of coconut oil. A comparison of both products reveals variations in colour, distinct wordings, different marks, and differing descriptions. The 1st respondent’s label and packaging are entirely distinct from those of the petitioner. The use of blue colour in the packaging of hair oils is a common element used in trade thereby the same cannot be claimed exclusively by any single manufacturer. In the instant case, the 1st respondent’s trade dress is clearly distinguishable from that of the petitioner and additionally the petitioner has not produced any supporting materials to establish infringement by the 1st respondent.
JUDGEMENT
The Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar held that 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.
CONCLUSION
It could be concluded that the judgement passed by the Madras High Court reiterates that no single manufacturer can be allowed to monopolise commonly used industry elements like blue colored packaging and so on. The Court viewed the petition as an attempt to secure exclusivity over widely used trade dress elements and thereby the Court refused to interfere with a validly granted copyright registration.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY : AMYUKTA RAJAGOPAL
Click here to read more: Marico Limited v. Prahalad Rai Kedia
