“The similarity cannot be a coincidence”, Bombay HC restrains Future Group from infringing Parle’s trademark in Tasty Treat packaging
The Court has also appointed a Court Commissioner to execute the temporary injunction order and seal the disputed “Tasty Treat” products put up by Future Consumer Limited.
Justice KR Shriram of the Bombay High Court on Friday passed an interim order of injunction against Future Consumer Ltd., to restrain it from infringing Parle’s intellectual property rights in the packaging of its products.
Parle had moved the Court claiming infringement of the copyright owned by it in respect of its products “MONACO”, “KRACKJACK” and “HIDE & SEEK.”
Future Consumer, on the other hand, were shown as marketing “Tasty Treat” products such as “CrackO”, “Kracker King” and “Peek-a-Boo” with packaging similar to that of Parle.
The Court was shown photographs of Parle’s packaging for “MONACO”, “KRACKJACK” and “HIDE & SEEK” products against Future Consumer’s packaging of “CrackO”, “Kracker King” and “Peek-a-Boo” products.
On a perusal of the same, the Court was convinced that Future Consumer had copied Parle’s packaging for identical products with similar packaging. 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 labels / artworks / 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.”
Parle had submitted before the Court that it had secured trademark registration of its packaging under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Parle further pointed out that it had spent substantial amounts of money and efforts to popularise and familiarize the consumers with their packaging.
The High Court, in turn, opined that there was a strong prima facie case made out in Parle’s favour for the grant of an interim injunction against Future Consumer. The Court added that Parle would suffer irreparable injury to its reputation and goodwill if the ad-interim reliefs are not granted.
“The balance of convenience is also in favour of Plaintiffs. There are no equities in favour of Defendants”, the Court said.
Therefore, it has now directed Future Consumer 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.
Further, the Court has also allowed Parle’s prayer to seize the products using such packaging in the meanwhile. To this end, Advocate Shrinivas Bobde was appointed to execute the order and submit a report as a representative of the Court receiver.
The Bench clarified that this appointment has been made since “the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay may not be in a position to travel in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The Commissioner has been authorised to enter the Future Group’s Big Bazaar outlet/s at Mumbai which are selling the Tasty Treat products and seal these products till the next hearing.
The Court Commissioner may also seek police assistance while ensuring the execution of the order.
Since no one appeared for Future Consumer, the Court granted them leave to apply for a variation of the ad-interim order within 3 days.
Senior Advocate Virag Tulzapurkar with Advocates Hiren Kamod, Aditya Chitale, Nishin Shrikhande and Avinash Belge (RKD Legal Services LLP) appeared for Parle.
Related Posts
About The Author
