spinner

Bombay High Court Upholds Restraining Order Against KLF Nirmal Industries

Last Updated: 29-12-2023 02:21:17pm
Bombay High Court Upholds Restraining Order Against KLF Nirmal Industries

The Bombay High Court recently upheld its order restraining KLF Nirmal Industries from using the blue bottle and protectable features like label resembling that of Parachute Oil. [Marico Limited v. KLF Nirmal Industries Pvt Ltd]

Justice RI Chagla observed that KLF Nirmal Industries had failed to make out a case for vacating or setting aside the order.

"I do not find any merit in the application by KLF Nirmal under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC, as in my view KLF has failed to make out any case for vacating and / or setting aside the said order by discharging its burden and/or meeting the essential requirements for vacating an ex-parte order under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC," the order stated.Marico filed a commercial suit against KLF alleging infringement of its trademarks by selling oil in a deceptively similar blue bottle with similar labels.

Marico claimed to have found out about KLF's products in July 2023 and immediately moved court seeking a restraining order against KLF.

The High Court on August 18, 2023 passed an ex-parte ad-interim order restraining KLF from using the allegedly infringing packaging, finding it deceptively similar to Parachute's coconut tree device, broken coconut device, blue bottles/containers and overall trade dress.Aggrieved by the order, KLF filed the present application under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC seeking vacation of the injunction order.The proviso to Rule 4 stipulates that an injunction may be vacated if a party seeking injunction knowingly makes a false or misleading statement in the application.Justice Chagla concluded that KLF Nirmal Industries failed to establish that Marico knowingly made false or misleading statements.

It found no merit in the application and rejected the same.

The ad-interim order will continue to operate until further orders. The matter has been posted for hearing on January 11, 2024.Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond with Advocates Shriraj Dhruv, Aastha Mehta and Ronak Shah, briefed by Dhru & Co, appeared for KLF.

Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam with Advocates Hiren Kamod, Nishad Nadkarni, Aasif Navodia, Khushboo Jhunjhunwala and Jaanvi Chopra, briefed by Khaitan & Co, appeared for Marico.

TAGS: Bombay High Court Restraining Order KLF Nirmal Industries Justice RI Chagla Application to Vacate Order


Latest Posts

Karnataka High Court Upholds BDA Land Acquisition, Dismisses Petition Filed 53 Years Later

Karnataka High Court Upholds B...

Supreme Court Upholds Prisoners' Right to Legal Aid in Landmark Ruling

Supreme Court Upholds Prisoner...

Supreme Court’s Verdict in Lalta Prasad Vaish & Sons vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court’s Verdict in L...

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Structure for Artificers in Indian Navy

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Stru...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against HDFC Bank in Locker Operation Dispute

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Agai...

Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate Insolvency Proceedings: Vidyasagar Prasad vs UCO Bank

Supreme Court Ruling on Corpor...

Supreme Court Ruling on Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode's Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court Ruling on Yashod...

Supreme Court Resolves Lease Dispute between Central Warehousing Corporation and Sidhartha Tiles

Supreme Court Resolves Lease D...