Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Rival From Using Trade Dress Similar To Parachute Jasmine Hair Oil

Marico told the Court that its Parachute Jasmine products, sold since 2000, are instantly recognisable for their blue-and-white bottle, stylised “Jasmine” logo, the Parachute flag device and jasmine-flower artwork. Its Hair & Care product, introduced in 1990, also features its own stylised branding, colour stripes and a distinctive bottle shape.

The company relied on its long-standing sales, advertising, and registered trademarks and copyrights to show the originality and goodwill associated with its trade dress.

The dispute began when Marico discovered “Sangini Jasmine” and “Sangini Hair Protection” products in 2016. Marico claimed that these bottles copied almost every key visual element shape, colour scheme, placement of artwork and stylised wording giving them an overall appearance close to Parachute Jasmine and Hair & Care.

Minolta denied the allegations, arguing that Marico had delayed filing the suit, that words like “Jasmine” and “Hair” were descriptive, and that the “Sangini” brand name distinguished its products. It also challenged the Court's territorial jurisdiction.

The court rejected these objections. It held that Marico, headquartered in Mumbai, was entitled to bring infringement claims under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act before the Bombay High Court. It further ruled that infringement is a continuing wrong, and therefore cannot be dismissed on grounds of delay.

After comparing the rival products, the court found them prima facie deceptively similar. It noted that both companies sell identical goods (hair oil) and that the Sangini bottles carried the same blue-white colour scheme for the jasmine variant, the same bottle shape, coconut imagery, and similarly stylised wording. The Sangini brand name, by contrast, appeared in a much smaller font, increasing the likelihood that a shopper would mistake one for the other.

The court held that an average consumer with imperfect recollection is likely to be misled, especially because such products are purchased off the shelf by general public. It emphasized that trademark comparison must be based on the overall impression rather than a detailed side-by-side examination.

“This is especially applicable in case of daily use products as the relevant consumers base may not pay particular attention to each and every component of the marks and is most likely to be swayed by the general impression conveyed by the marks,” the Court said.

Finding no credible reason for Minolta's adoption of such similar packaging, the Court said the imitation appeared intentional and amounted to misrepresentation, with a real risk of damaging Marico's established reputation.

Consequently, the court allowed Marico's interim plea and restrained Minolta Natural Care and associated entities from using the disputed marks, logos, labels, trade dress, bottles or any other packaging identical or deceptively similar to Marico's Parachute Advansed Jasmine and Hair & Care registered marks.

Case Title: Marico Limited v M/s. Minolta Natural Care and Others

Case Number: IA(L) 28667/2025 in Commercial IP (L) 28094/2025

For Plaintiff: Advocates Hiren Kamod, Nishad Nadkarni, Aasig Navodia, Khushboo Jhunjhunwala, Rakshita Singh, Jaanvi Chopra instructed by Khaitan & Co.

For Defendants: Advocate Anil Goel