{"id":25121,"date":"2026-06-01T07:41:59","date_gmt":"2026-06-01T07:41:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=25121"},"modified":"2026-06-01T07:49:12","modified_gmt":"2026-06-01T07:49:12","slug":"marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Marico vs Minolta Natural Care (2025): Bombay High Court Protects Trade Dress, Trademarks &amp; Consumer Trust"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement delivered by the Bombay High Court in <strong>Marico Limited vs. Minolta Natural Care &amp; Ors.<\/strong> on 9 December 2025 is an important ruling in the fields of trademark infringement, copyright protection, trade dress imitation and passing off under Indian intellectual property law. The dispute arose when Marico Limited, one of India\u2019s leading FMCG companies, alleged that the defendants were selling hair oil products under the marks \u201cSangini Jasmine\u201d and \u201cHair Protection\u201d using packaging, labels, bottle designs, artistic features and colour combinations deceptively similar to Marico\u2019s well-known \u201cParachute Advansed Jasmine\u201d and \u201cHair &amp; Care\u201d products.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_84 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\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/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\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Factual_And_Procedural_Background\" >Factual And Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Key_Facts_At_A_Glance\" >Key Facts At A Glance<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/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\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Dispute_Before_The_Court\" >Dispute Before The Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Core_Issues_Before_The_Court\" >Core Issues Before The Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Summary_Of_The_Parties_Contentions\" >Summary Of The Parties\u2019 Contentions<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Reasoning_And_Analysis_Of_The_Court\" >Reasoning And Analysis Of The Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Trademark_Infringement_Principles\" >Trademark Infringement Principles<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Effect_Of_Trademark_Disclaimers\" >Effect Of Trademark Disclaimers<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Composite_Marks_And_Section_17\" >Composite Marks And Section 17<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Section_35_Defence_Under_The_Trade_Marks_Act\" >Section 35: Defence Under The Trade Marks Act<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Goodwill_And_Reputation\" >Goodwill And Reputation<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Final_Decision_Of_The_Court\" >Final Decision Of The Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Point_Of_Law_Settled\" >Point Of Law Settled<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Key_Legal_Principles_At_A_Glance\" >Key Legal Principles At A Glance<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#Important_Takeaways\" >Important Takeaways<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement extensively discusses the principles governing deceptive similarity, the anti-dissection rule, passing off, the effect of trademark disclaimers, composite trademarks, and consumer confusion. The court examined several important precedents of the Supreme Court and various high courts while granting an interim injunction in favour of Marico Limited. The ruling is significant because it reinforces the principle that trademark disputes must be judged from the perspective of an ordinary consumer having imperfect recollection and that dishonest imitation of overall trade dress cannot be permitted even where certain individual words may be descriptive or generic in nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_And_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual And Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Marico Limited instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Bombay High Court, alleging infringement of its registered trademarks, copyright in artistic works, and passing off against the defendants who were manufacturing and marketing hair oil products under the marks \u201cSangini Jasmine\u201d and \u201cHair Protection\u201d. The plaintiff asserted that its products \u201cParachute Advansed Jasmine\u201d and \u201cHair &amp; Care\u201d had acquired enormous goodwill and market recognition over several decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff contended that the defendants copied the essential features of its products, including the stylised use of the word \u201cJasmine\u201d, distinctive bottle shapes, blue and white colour combinations, green cap design, placement of models\u2019 photographs, depiction of jasmine flowers and coconuts, and the overall artistic layout of the packaging. According to Marico, the defendants deliberately designed their products in a manner calculated to deceive consumers and ride upon the plaintiff\u2019s goodwill and reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff relied upon its trademark registrations under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and asserted copyright ownership in the artistic labels and packaging under the Copyright Act, 1957. The suit also sought leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent to combine causes of action relating to trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendants opposed the interim injunction application primarily on the grounds that the words \u201cJasmine\u201d and \u201cHair &amp; Care\u201d were descriptive and common to trade. They also argued that several of the plaintiff\u2019s trademark registrations contained disclaimers restricting exclusive rights over these expressions. Another defence raised by the defendants was that the plaintiff had delayed filing the suit despite allegedly knowing about the defendants\u2019 products since 2016. The defendants further contended that the products were sufficiently distinguishable because the house mark \u201cSangini\u201d appeared on the packaging.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-facts-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Facts_At_A_Glance\"><\/span>Key Facts At A Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Plaintiff<\/td><td>Marico Limited<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Defendants\u2019 Marks<\/td><td>\u201cSangini Jasmine\u201d and \u201cHair Protection\u201d<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Plaintiff\u2019s Products<\/td><td>\u201cParachute Advansed Jasmine\u201d and \u201cHair &amp; Care\u201d<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Claims Raised<\/td><td>Trademark Infringement, Copyright Infringement and Passing Off<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Relevant Laws<\/td><td>Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Copyright Act, 1957<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Primary Allegation<\/td><td>Copying of packaging, labels, bottle shapes, colour schemes and artistic features<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-dispute-before-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_The_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The central dispute before the court was whether the defendants\u2019 products were deceptively similar to Marico\u2019s products so as to constitute trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off. The court was also required to determine the legal effect of disclaimers attached to some trademark registrations and whether the use of descriptive or generic words could still amount to infringement when considered in the context of the entire packaging and trade dress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff argued that infringement must be judged on the basis of the overall commercial impression created by the competing products rather than isolated comparison of words. Marico asserted that the defendants had copied almost every significant visual element of the plaintiff\u2019s products, including colour schemes, bottle shapes, stylised lettering, placement of graphical features and artistic layout. The plaintiff further argued that delay cannot defeat a trademark infringement claim because infringement gives rise to a recurring cause of action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendants, however, contended that the words \u201cJasmine\u201d and \u201cHair &amp; Care\u201d were incapable of exclusive appropriation due to disclaimers and common trade usage. They argued that the use of the word \u201cSangini\u201d sufficiently differentiated their products from those of Marico. Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court judgement in <strong>Pernod Ricard India Private Limited vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra<\/strong> to argue that the mere presence of common descriptive words cannot by itself establish deceptive similarity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-core-issues-before-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Issues_Before_The_Court\"><\/span>Core Issues Before The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether the defendants\u2019 products were deceptively similar to Marico\u2019s products.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the impugned packaging and trade dress amounted to trademark infringement.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the artistic labels and packaging infringed Marico\u2019s copyright.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the defendants were passing off their products as those of the plaintiff.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>What is the legal effect of trademark disclaimers in infringement proceedings?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether descriptive or generic words can contribute to deceptive similarity when viewed as part of the overall trade dress.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether delay in filing the suit could disentitle the plaintiff from interim relief.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-summary-of-the-parties-contentions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Summary_Of_The_Parties_Contentions\"><\/span>Summary Of The Parties\u2019 Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Plaintiff&#8217;s Contentions<\/th><th>Defendants&#8217; Contentions<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Overall commercial impression should be considered.<\/td><td>\u201cJasmine\u201d and \u201cHair &amp; Care\u201d are descriptive and common to trade.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Defendants copied colour schemes, bottle shapes and artistic layout.<\/td><td>Trademark registrations contain disclaimers limiting exclusivity.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Consumers are likely to be deceived or confused.<\/td><td>Use of the house mark \u201cSangini\u201d differentiates the products.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Copyright exists in labels and packaging artwork.<\/td><td>No deceptive similarity exists when marks are viewed separately.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Delay does not defeat an infringement action.<\/td><td>The suit was filed after alleged knowledge of products since 2016.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_And_Analysis_Of_The_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning And Analysis Of The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court discussed the issue of territorial jurisdiction and permitted joinder of causes of action under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent. The Court observed that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, conferred jurisdiction upon the Bombay High Court because the plaintiff carried on business in Mumbai. The Court held that artificial splitting of trademark infringement and passing off claims would be undesirable since all disputes arose from the same transaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court rejected the defendants\u2019 argument regarding delay and limitation. Relying upon the Supreme Court decision in Bengal Waterproof Limited vs Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Co., the Court observed that trademark infringement and passing off constitute recurring causes of action, and delay alone cannot defeat a claim for injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-trademark-infringement-principles\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Trademark_Infringement_Principles\"><\/span>Trademark Infringement Principles<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">While discussing trademark infringement principles, the court emphasised that marks must be compared as a whole and not dissected into isolated components. The Court referred to the anti-dissection rule and the concept of overall commercial impression. The court carefully compared the rival products and observed that the defendants had copied the plaintiff\u2019s unique bottle shape, blue-white colour combination, stylised representation of \u201cJasmine\u201d, depiction of jasmine flowers and coconuts, and overall visual arrangement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court relied heavily upon the Supreme Court judgement in Parle Products Private Limited vs. J.P. &amp; Co., 1972 1 SCC 618, where it was held that trademarks are remembered by general impression rather than photographic recollection. The Bombay High Court reiterated that an average consumer with imperfect memory is likely to be deceived when two products convey substantially similar visual impressions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court also referred to Cadila Health Care Ltd vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd principles regarding deceptive similarity and consumer confusion. The court noted that minor differences between rival marks become irrelevant when the overall impression creates a likelihood of confusion among ordinary consumers purchasing everyday products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-effect-of-trademark-disclaimers\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Effect_Of_Trademark_Disclaimers\"><\/span>Effect Of Trademark Disclaimers<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An important part of the judgement concerned the effect of trademark disclaimers. The defendants argued that disclaimers attached to some registrations prevented Marico from claiming exclusivity over the words \u201cJasmine\u201d and \u201cHair &amp; Care\u201d. The Court rejected this argument by relying upon the Bombay High Court decisions in Pidilite Industries Limited vs S.M. Associates, 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 143, and Pidilite Industries Limited vs Riya Chemy, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 5077. The court observed that disclaimers do not enter the marketplace and ordinary consumers are unaware of them. Therefore, while deciding deceptive similarity, the entire mark, including disclaimed matter, must still be considered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-composite-marks-and-section-17\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Composite_Marks_And_Section_17\"><\/span>Composite Marks And Section 17<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court also discussed Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, concerning composite marks. Reference was made to Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs Alaknanda Cement Pvt. Ltd, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 783, and Three-N-Products Pvt. Ltd vs Emami Ltd, where courts recognised that even if a word is part of a composite mark, exclusivity may still arise where the feature has acquired distinctiveness and goodwill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court distinguished the Supreme Court ruling in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701, by observing that Marico\u2019s case was not based merely on the use of common words but on the totality of deceptive visual features and overall trade dress copied by the defendants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-section-35-defence-under-the-trade-marks-act\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_35_Defence_Under_The_Trade_Marks_Act\"><\/span>Section 35: Defence Under The Trade Marks Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court also rejected the defence under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, which protects bona fide descriptive use. The court held that the defendants were not using \u201cJasmine\u201d descriptively but prominently as a trademark and source identifier. The placement and stylisation of the word demonstrated trademark use rather than a descriptive reference to ingredients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-goodwill-and-reputation\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Goodwill_And_Reputation\"><\/span>Goodwill And Reputation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">After examining the sales figures, advertising expenses and market reputation of Marico\u2019s products, the court concluded that the plaintiff had established strong goodwill and reputation. The court found that the defendants had failed to provide any honest explanation for the adoption of deceptively similar trade dress and labels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_Of_The_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision Of The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Bombay High Court held that Marico Limited had successfully established a prima facie case of trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off. The Court observed that the defendants\u2019 products were deceptively similar and likely to mislead consumers. It further held that the defendants had dishonestly attempted to imitate the plaintiff\u2019s packaging and trade dress in order to capitalise upon Marico\u2019s goodwill and reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Accordingly, the Court allowed the interim application and granted an injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks, labels, packaging, bottles, logos and trade dress deceptively similar to Marico\u2019s products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-point-of-law-settled\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_Of_Law_Settled\"><\/span>Point Of Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It reiterates that deceptive similarity must be judged on the basis of overall commercial impression and not by dissecting marks into isolated parts. The ruling confirms that disclaimers attached to trademark registrations do not automatically eliminate the possibility of consumer confusion because ordinary consumers are unaware of such disclaimers. The decision also clarifies that even descriptive or common words may receive protection when used in a distinctive, stylised trade dress that has acquired goodwill and reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement further strengthens the principle that delay alone is not a defence in trademark infringement actions because infringement constitutes a recurring cause of action. Most importantly, the ruling emphasises that dishonest imitation of packaging, labels and trade dress intended to capitalise upon another trader\u2019s reputation will not be tolerated by courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-legal-principles-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles_At_A_Glance\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles At A Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Legal Principle<\/th><th>Court&#8217;s Observation<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Overall Commercial Impression<\/td><td>Marks must be compared as a whole and not dissected.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Anti-Dissection Rule<\/td><td>Individual elements cannot be isolated for comparison.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trademark Disclaimers<\/td><td>Consumers are unaware of disclaimers; the entire mark remains relevant.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Composite Marks<\/td><td>Distinctive features may gain independent protection.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 35 Defence<\/td><td>Protection unavailable where descriptive words are used as trademarks.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Delay In Filing Suit<\/td><td>Not a complete defence because infringement is a recurring cause of action.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trade Dress Protection<\/td><td>Dishonest imitation of packaging and labels is actionable.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Case Title<\/th><td>Marico Limited Vs Minolta Natural Care &amp; Ors.<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date Of Order<\/th><td>9 December 2025<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>COMMERCIAL IP (L) NO. 28094 of 2025<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><td>2:2025:BHC-OS:24054<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name Of Court<\/th><td>Bombay High Court<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name Of Honourable Judge<\/th><td>Hon\u2019ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-important-takeaways\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Takeaways\"><\/span>Important Takeaways<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Deceptive similarity is assessed on overall commercial impression.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trademark disclaimers do not negate consumer confusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Distinctive trade dress can receive legal protection.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Delay alone is not a defence in trademark infringement cases.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dishonest imitation of packaging and labels attracts injunctive relief.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Composite marks may acquire independent distinctiveness and goodwill.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The judgement delivered by the Bombay High Court in Marico Limited vs. Minolta Natural Care &amp; Ors. on 9 December 2025 is an important ruling in the fields of trademark infringement, copyright protection, trade dress imitation and passing off under Indian intellectual property law. The dispute arose when Marico Limited, one of India\u2019s leading<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":25119,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","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":[5149,28],"class_list":["post-25121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-intellectual-property","tag-intellectual-property","tag-top-news"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.6.1 (Yoast SEO v27.7) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Marico vs Minolta Natural Care (2025): Bombay High Court Protects Trade Dress, Trademarks &amp; Consumer Trust - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Bombay High Court protects Marico trademarks and trade dress, clarifying deceptive similarity, passing off, disclaimers and copyright law.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Marico vs Minolta Natural Care (2025): Bombay High Court Protects Trade Dress, Trademarks &amp; Consumer Trust\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Bombay High Court protects Marico trademarks and trade dress, clarifying deceptive similarity, passing off, disclaimers and copyright law.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-01T07:41:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-06-01T07:49:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-13.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"833\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"468\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Marico vs Minolta Natural Care (2025): Bombay High Court Protects Trade Dress, Trademarks &amp; Consumer Trust\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-01T07:41:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-01T07:49:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2034,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Capture-13.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Intellectual Property\",\"Top News\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\\\/\",\"name\":\"Marico vs Minolta Natural Care (2025): Bombay High Court Protects Trade Dress, Trademarks &amp; Consumer Trust - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Capture-13.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-01T07:41:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-01T07:49:12+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Bombay High Court protects Marico trademarks and trade dress, clarifying deceptive similarity, passing off, disclaimers and copyright law.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Capture-13.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Capture-13.jpg\",\"width\":833,\"height\":468,\"caption\":\"Marico vs Minolta Natural Care\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Intellectual Property > Marico vs Minolta Natural Care (2025): Bombay High Court Protects Trade Dress, Trademarks & Consumer Trust\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Marico vs Minolta Natural Care (2025): Bombay High Court Protects Trade Dress, Trademarks &amp; Consumer Trust - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"The Bombay High Court protects Marico trademarks and trade dress, clarifying deceptive similarity, passing off, disclaimers and copyright law.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Marico vs Minolta Natural Care (2025): Bombay High Court Protects Trade Dress, Trademarks &amp; Consumer Trust","og_description":"The Bombay High Court protects Marico trademarks and trade dress, clarifying deceptive similarity, passing off, disclaimers and copyright law.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-06-01T07:41:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-06-01T07:49:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":833,"height":468,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-13.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Marico vs Minolta Natural Care (2025): Bombay High Court Protects Trade Dress, Trademarks &amp; Consumer Trust","datePublished":"2026-06-01T07:41:59+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-01T07:49:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/"},"wordCount":2034,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-13.jpg","keywords":["Intellectual Property","Top News"],"articleSection":["Intellectual Property"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/","name":"Marico vs Minolta Natural Care (2025): Bombay High Court Protects Trade Dress, Trademarks &amp; Consumer Trust - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-13.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-01T07:41:59+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-01T07:49:12+00:00","description":"The Bombay High Court protects Marico trademarks and trade dress, clarifying deceptive similarity, passing off, disclaimers and copyright law.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-13.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-13.jpg","width":833,"height":468,"caption":"Marico vs Minolta Natural Care"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/marico-vs-minolta-natural-care-trade-dress-trademark-infringement-bombay-high-court-2025\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Intellectual Property > Marico vs Minolta Natural Care (2025): Bombay High Court Protects Trade Dress, Trademarks & Consumer Trust"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-13.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25121","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=25121"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25121\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25327,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25121\/revisions\/25327"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25119"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}