{"id":11933,"date":"2025-11-19T10:27:07","date_gmt":"2025-11-19T10:27:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=11933"},"modified":"2025-11-19T10:29:51","modified_gmt":"2025-11-19T10:29:51","slug":"trade-dress-protection-and-originality-in-copyright","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-dress-protection-and-originality-in-copyright\/","title":{"rendered":"Trade Dress Protection and Originality in Copyright"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"case-title\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Marico_Limited_Vs_Prahalad_Rai_Kedia_Another\"><\/span>Marico Limited Vs. Prahalad Rai Kedia &amp; Another<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Order Date:<\/strong> 11 November 2025<br \/>\n<strong>Case Number:<\/strong> (T)OP(CR) No. 1 of 2024<br \/>\n<strong>Court:<\/strong> High Court of Judicature at Madras<br \/>\n<strong>Hon\u2019ble Judge:<\/strong> Justice N. Senthilkumar<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-dress-protection-and-originality-in-copyright\/#Marico_Limited_Vs_Prahalad_Rai_Kedia_Another\" >Marico Limited Vs. Prahalad Rai Kedia &amp; Another<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-dress-protection-and-originality-in-copyright\/#Facts_Of_The_Case\" >Facts Of The Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-dress-protection-and-originality-in-copyright\/#Procedural_History\" >Procedural History<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-dress-protection-and-originality-in-copyright\/#Core_Dispute\" >Core Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-dress-protection-and-originality-in-copyright\/#Judicial_Reasoning_And_Analysis\" >Judicial Reasoning And Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-dress-protection-and-originality-in-copyright\/#Comparison_Of_Packaging_Labels\" >Comparison Of Packaging Labels<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-dress-protection-and-originality-in-copyright\/#Respondents_Claims\" >Respondent\u2019s Claims<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-dress-protection-and-originality-in-copyright\/#Evaluation_Of_Infringement_Issue\" >Evaluation Of Infringement Issue<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-dress-protection-and-originality-in-copyright\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-dress-protection-and-originality-in-copyright\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-dress-protection-and-originality-in-copyright\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<h2 id=\"facts-of-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_Of_The_Case\"><\/span>Facts Of The Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The petitioner, Marico Limited, is a well-known Indian consumer goods company that has been manufacturing and selling several popular products for decades, including Parachute, Parachute Advansed Jasmine, Hair &amp; Care, Nihar, Saffola, Mediker, Livon, Revive, Silk-n-Shine, and Set Wet. In particular, Marico\u2019s coconut oil brand PARACHUTE is widely recognised for its distinctive packaging label, including the flag device logo, the broken coconut symbol, the blue and green colour combination, and the overall trade dress and layout used for many years.<\/p>\n<p>Marico holds prior copyright registration for this label under Copyright Registration No. A-64997\/2003, along with multiple trademark registrations for the artistic representation used on its packaging. Marico alleged that the first respondent, Prahalad Rai Kedia, proprietor of Kedia Industries, secured Copyright Registration No. A-85790\/2009 in respect of packaging and label for EVEREST Coconut Oil by copying and imitating features of Marico\u2019s PARACHUTE label.<\/p>\n<p>Marico contended that the Everest label copied the essential features of the Parachute label and that the respondent concealed the existence of Marico\u2019s prior copyright and trademark when applying for registration. According to Marico, this amounted to fraudulent registration, copyright infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. Marico also submitted that the respondent had previously copied Parachute packaging in 2002 under the brand SHRI LAXMI and continued to imitate the label even after receiving cease-and-desist notices.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-history\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_History\"><\/span>Procedural History<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Marico filed a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking suspension and expunction of Copyright Registration No. A-85790\/2009 from the Copyright Register. Because the first respondent did not appear despite notice, he was set ex parte on 14 August 2025. The second respondent, the Registrar of Copyrights, appeared and defended the grant of registration.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"core-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The central legal question before the Court was whether the artistic work forming the packaging label for EVEREST Coconut Oil was a substantial reproduction or imitation of the PARACHUTE packaging label, such that the registration obtained by the first respondent should be removed under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957. In other words, the Court had to decide whether the EVEREST label infringed Marico\u2019s copyright and should therefore be expunged from the Copyright Register.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"judicial-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Reasoning_And_Analysis\"><\/span>Judicial Reasoning And Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court acknowledged that Marico holds trademark and copyright protection for its artistic label and has been continuously using the PARACHUTE trade dress for many decades. It also noted that the Delhi High Court has previously restrained various third parties from infringing or copying Marico\u2019s trade dress and trademarks in earlier matters.<\/p>\n<p>However, the Court emphasised that the question in the present petition was not whether Marico owns valid intellectual property rights, but whether the EVEREST packaging label amounts to copyright infringement and therefore warrants expunction of its registration.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"label-comparison\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparison_Of_Packaging_Labels\"><\/span>Comparison Of Packaging Labels<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Variations in colour scheme<\/li>\n<li>Differences in wording and trade descriptions<\/li>\n<li>Different logo elements<\/li>\n<li>Distinct layout and visual identity<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>It found that while both labels used a blue background, the use of blue in hair oil packaging is extremely common in the market and cannot be monopolised by any single manufacturer.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"respondent-claims\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondents_Claims\"><\/span>Respondent\u2019s Claims<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<table border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Claim By Respondent<\/th>\n<th>Supporting Basis<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Everest brand used since 2006<\/td>\n<td>Corresponding label adopted in 2007<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Adoption bona fide, honest, independent<\/td>\n<td>Own copyright registration relied upon<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>The Court noted that Marico did not produce sufficient evidence to counter the respondent\u2019s assertion of originality.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"infringement-evaluation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Evaluation_Of_Infringement_Issue\"><\/span>Evaluation Of Infringement Issue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>On evaluating the issue of infringement, the Court held that Marico failed to produce convincing comparative material showing that the EVEREST label is a direct or substantial copy of the PARACHUTE label. The Court concluded that Marico\u2019s effort appeared to be an attempt to monopolise the trade of coconut oil by relying on similarities that were generic to the industry rather than unique to its brand.<\/p>\n<p>Based on the evidence placed on record, the Court held that Marico did not satisfy the legal burden required under Section 50 of the Copyright Act for removal of a registered copyright. The respondent\u2019s work could not be considered a pirated reproduction.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The High Court dismissed Marico\u2019s petition. It held that the EVEREST packaging label was not deceptively similar to the PARACHUTE packaging label and therefore did not infringe Marico\u2019s copyright. As a result, there was no ground to suspend or expunge the first respondent\u2019s copyright registration No. A-85790\/2009 from the Copyright Register. No costs were awarded.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"author-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Written_By\"><\/span>Written By<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Marico Limited Vs. Prahalad Rai Kedia &amp; Another Order Date: 11 November 2025 Case Number: (T)OP(CR) No. 1 of 2024 Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras Hon\u2019ble Judge: Justice N. Senthilkumar Facts Of The Case The petitioner, Marico Limited, is a well-known Indian consumer goods company that has been manufacturing and selling several popular<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-11933","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11933","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11933"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11933\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}