The Bombay High Court has refused to vacate the ex-parte (without the other party present for the hearing) stay order restraining KLF Nirmal Industries Pvt Ltd from using blue packaging and labels for its coconut oil product, which is deceptively similar to that of Parachute Coconut Oil manufactured by Marico Limited.
Justice Riyaz Chagla, on December 20, rejected an application filed by KLF, stating that it failed to prove that Marico knowingly suppressed its delay in seeking the injunction against its packaging of coconut oil products.
The court said, “I am of the prima facie view that there has been no delay in the Plaintiff (Marico) approaching this Court and/or that there is any suppression of delay… The Plaintiff, upon being aware, has acted with utmost dispatch and proceeded to take action against the Defendant.”
Marico's allegations of trademark infringement
Marico had filed a suit against KLF, alleging that the latter infringed upon its trademarks through similarities in packaging and labeling of their coconut oil products. The suit claimed that it learned about the alleged infringement in July this year and immediately approached the court. The consumer goods company claimed that such visual resemblances could lead to consumer confusion, potentially causing damage to the goodwill and brand image of their Parachute Coconut Oil product.
On August 18, the HC had granted an ex-parte interim order restraining KLF from using the allegedly infringing packaging. Hence, KLF filed the application urging the court to vacate the restraining order.
KLF says Marico had prior knowledge
KLF claimed that Marico had prior knowledge of their product. KLF referred to a 2021 Information Memorandum titled 'Project Kepler,' which contained a disclosure of its bouquet of products. It claimed that this information memorandum was given to parties interested in investing in KLF and who signed a confidentiality agreement, including Marico. The NDA was signed by the Head of Marico's Mergers & Acquisition department, it claimed.
Justice Chagla, however, said that the evidence shown by KLF was speculative and lacking substance. He further said that the burden of proving that Marico knowingly made false or misleading statements rested with KLF. The evidence was not sufficient to establish that Marico's M&A team had knowledge of the allegedly infringing product, Justice Chagla added.
The Information Memorandum was not a material or relevant document in the context of trademark infringement. Even if Marico's M&A team had knowledge of the memorandum, it wouldn't constitute a knowingly false or misleading statement. Mere reference to 'Project Kepler' in an email did not establish that Marico had received the Information Memorandum or any document containing images of the impugned product, Justice Chagla opined.
Concluding that KLF failed to establish that Marico knowingly made false or misleading statements, the HC rejected the application.
The HC has kept the matter for hearing on January 11, 2024.
