The Bombay High Court recently declined to revoke its ex-parte ruling that prevented KLF Nirmal Industries from using blue packaging and label for its coconut oil products, which were found to be deceptively similar to Parachute Coconut Oil. Justice RI Chagla opined that KLF Nirmal Industries failed to substantiate its claim that Marico Ltd, the manufacturer of Parachute Coconut Oil, deliberately concealed its delay in seeking an injunction against KLF Nirmal's coconut oil products' packaging.

The court held that there was no delay on the Plaintiff's part in approaching the Court, and there was no suppression of delay, given that the Defendant could not prove when the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant's product, contrary to the Plaintiff's claim of being aware of the Defendant's impugned products in July 2023. The Plaintiff acted quickly once notified and took action against the Defendant, the court said.

Marico Limited, a consumer goods manufacturer, filed a Commercial IPR Suit against KLF Nirmal Industries, accusing the latter of infringing its trademarks by using packaging and labelling that looked similar to its coconut oil products. Marico claimed that it learned of the infringing product and packaging in July 2023 and immediately filed the suit. Marico argued that the visual similarities could confuse consumers, leading to damage to the goodwill and brand image of its Parachute Coconut Oil product.

On August 18, 2023, the Bombay High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining KLF Nirmal Industries from using the allegedly infringing packaging, which was found deceptively similar to Parachute's coconut tree device, broken coconut device, blue bottles/containers, and overall trade dress. KLF Nirmal Industries then filed an Interim Application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC, seeking to vacate the injunction.

Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC gives a court the authority to discharge, vary, or set aside an injunction order. The rule's proviso states that an injunction may be revoked if a party knowingly makes a false or misleading statement in their application for temporary injunction or supporting affidavit, unless the court deems it unnecessary in the interests of justice. KLF Nirmal Industries' primary argument was that Marico had prior knowledge of its product. The defendant referred to a 2021 Information Memorandum titled 'Project Kepler,' which contained a disclosure of its products. KLF Nirmal claimed that this information memorandum was given to parties interested in investing in KLF Nirmal, including Marico, who signed a confidentiality agreement. The NDA was signed by the Head of Marico's Mergers & Acquisition department, it said.

However, the court found the evidence presented by KLF Nirmal Industries to be speculative and lacking substance. The court emphasized that the burden of proving that Marico knowingly made false or misleading statements rested with the defendant. The court stated that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Marico's M&A team had knowledge of the allegedly infringing product. The court opined that the Information Memorandum was not a material or relevant document in the context of trademark infringement. Even if Marico's M&A team had knowledge of the memorandum, the court held that it wouldn't constitute a knowingly false or misleading statement. The court assessed KLF Nirmal's attempt to link the NDA with the Information Memorandum, finding the connection tenuous and lacking in substance. The court observed that a mere reference to 'Project Kepler' in an email did not establish that Marico had received the Information Memorandum or any document containing images of the impugned product.

The court concluded that KLF Nirmal Industries failed to establish that Marico knowingly made false or misleading statements. The court found no merit in KLF Nirmal's application, stating that the essential requirements for vacating an ex-parte order were not met. In light of this, the court ruled that the ex-parte ad-interim order dated August 18, 2023, would continue to operate until further orders. The court scheduled the next hearing for the matter on January 11, 2024.