Bombay HC Restrains Future Group From Infringing Parle's Trademark in Monaco, Krackjack and Hide & Seek
Court took note of the similarities between the packaging of the products under dispute. It was of the view that Future Consumer Limited copied Parle's packaging for identical products with similar packaging.
Parle claims copyright infringement for Monaco, Krackjack and Hide & Seek
Parle petitioned the Court and claimed that Future Consumer Ltd. infringed its copyright in respect of its products "MONACO", "KRACKJACK" and "HIDE & SEEK." Future Consumer Ltd. was marketing "Tasty Treat" products such as "CrackO", "Kracker King" and "Peek-a-Boo".The disputed products have similar packaging with Parle's line of products besides having a singular ring to its product names.
The Parle team showed photographs of parle's packaging for MONACO, KRACKJACK & HIDE& SEEK products to substantiate its claim. It facilitated the Court to compare the packaging of the parle products with the disputed Tasty Treat products mentioned in the petition.
Strong prima facie case made out in Parle's favour
Bombay High Court took note of the similarities between the packaging of the products under dispute. It was of the view that Future Consumer Limited copied Parle's packaging for identical products with similar packaging. Thus, stating that there was a strong prima facie case made out in Parle's favour for the grant of an interim injunction against Future Consumer. Justice Shriram said,
"A comparison of the rival products hardly leaves any doubt about the manner in which Defendants have blatantly copied Plaintiffs’ Packaging/labels. There is no doubt that the rival labels are being used for identical products under nearly identical packaging and trade dresses. The packaging/trade dresses of Defendants’ “CrackO”, “Kracker King” and “Peek-a-Boo” products are a reproduction of Plaintiffs’ Packaging used in respect of their “MONACO”, “KRACKJACK” and “HIDE & SEEK” products and/or reproductions of substantial parts thereof. It is apparent that Defendants must have had Plaintiffs’ products before them while designing the impugned packaging. The similarity in the rival packaging/labels cannot be a matter of coincidence."
The Court also added that if the ad-interim reliefs are not granted Parle would suffer irreparable injury to its reputation and goodwill. Therefore, it passed an injunction against Future Consumer Ltd. to refrain from reproducing, publishing, communicating to the public its Tasty Treat packaging (which is under dispute) or from using any layout, packaging etc. that is identical with and or deceptively similar to Parle’s packaging.
In addition to this, the Court has also allowed Parle's prayer to seize the products using such packaging.
The Court appoints a Court Commissioner to seal disputed products from Tasty Treat
The Court has appointed a Court Commissioner to execute the temporary injunction order. The order empowers the commissioner to enter all the Big Bazaar outlets that sell Tasty Treat products in Mumbai. The commissioner is also authorised to seal the disputed products before the next hearing takes place in this matter. He is also allowed to take assistance from the police to get the order executed.
On the other side, the Court granted Future Consumer Ltd. to apply for a variation of the ad-interim order within 3 days as no one appeared for the company.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article above are those of the authors' and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of this publishing house
Around The World