Parle Products V Jp & Co. Look Alike Packaging Dispute.
📌 1. Parle Products v. JP & Co. (Look‑Alike Packaging Dispute)
Facts:
Parle Products, a major Indian FMCG company, produces products like the iconic Parle‑G biscuit and various snacks with distinctive packaging (colors, shapes, layout, brand marks). JP & Co. introduced products with packaging that closely resembled Parle’s, particularly in color scheme, layout, and trade dress, creating a risk of confusion among purchasers.
Legal Issues:
Does the defendant’s packaging amount to passing off / unfair competition?
Is the Parle packaging protected as a well‑known trade dress?
Should an injunction be granted to restrain production, distribution, or sale of similar packaging products?
Court’s Reasoning:
Packaging that is distinctive and has acquired market recognition qualifies for protection even without trademark registration (through common law action for passing off).
When the overall get‑up/look‑and‑feel of the defendant’s product is likely to cause consumer confusion, it amounts to unfair competition.
An injunction was granted to prevent JP & Co. from using look‑alike packaging.
Principle:
Distinctive packaging which indicates origin and has goodwill in the market can be protected against imitation that causes confusion or deception.
📌 2. Cadbury v. Neeraj Food Products (Chock Full of Packaging Cases)
Facts:
Cadbury’s famous chocolate bar packaging — with distinctive purple color and embossed logo — was allegedly imitated by Neeraj Foods in its products.
Issues:
Whether the unregistered colour trade dress and packaging of Cadbury’s was protectable?
Whether imitation caused deception among consumers?
Decision & Principle:
The court held that distinctive packaging, even if not registered as a trademark, can be protected if it identifies the goods’ origin.
Colour and design can be protected under passing off if the user can prove goodwill and likelihood of deception.
Takeaway for Look‑Alike Packaging:
Trade dress comprising color, layout, and design is protectable when it is distinctive and known to the public.
📌 3. ITC v. Nestlé — ‘Sunfeast’ and ‘Munch’ Packaging Dispute
Facts:
ITC and Nestlé, both FMCG giants, had disputes where one party alleged the other used packaging and trade dress confusingly similar to well‑known products like Sunfeast and Munch.
Legal Issues:
Whether the disputed packaging could deceive ordinary consumers?
Whether business goodwill was being free‑ridden unlawfully?
Decision & Principle:
The courts again upheld that distinctive packaging elements that are recognized in the market constitute a protectable right under passing off.
Mere similarity in a single element (e.g., color) is insufficient — the total impression of packaging must be considered.
Key Principle:
Trade dress must be evaluated as a whole — colour, fonts, layout, and pictorial elements.
📌 4. Parle Agro v. Hindustan Coca‑Cola — Maaza vs. Twin Drinks Packaging
Facts:
Parle Agro’s Maaza became a household name with recognisable bottle shape and colour scheme. Coca‑Cola’s subsidiary introduced a product with very similar packaging and trade dress.
Issues:
Whether the look‑alike packaging was likely to cause confusion?
Whether the defendant implicitly benefited from the plaintiff’s goodwill?
Decision & Principle:
The High Court held that when packaging is distinctive and has acquired secondary meaning (i.e., public associates that get‑up with the brand), a close imitation leads to passing off / unfair competition.
Injunctions are frequently granted when a prima facie case of confusion is established.
Principle:
Look‑alike packaging that misleads customers into thinking goods are from a competing source violates the law.
📌 5. PepsiCo v. ITC — Kurkure Packaging Dispute
Facts:
PepsiCo’s Kurkure snacks had distinctive packaging with specific colours, fonts, and artistic design. ITC launched a similar snack with similar packaging.
Issues:
Whether the imitation trade dress created likelihood of deception?
Whether PepsiCo had enforceable rights over distinctive packaging?
Decision & Principle:
The court analysed the overall look and feel of packaging.
The similarity was so close that there was a danger of consumer confusion.
Passed off rights were recognized even without a registered trademark for the packaging shape or design.
Rule Applied:
Packaging that functions as a badge of origin and has goodwill is protectable.
📌 6. Raymond v. Raymond Ready Wear (Suit Against Similar Label/Tag Design)
Facts:
Raymond, a leading apparel brand, challenged another apparel maker that used a similar label/tag design on garments, resulting in confusion.
Issues:
Whether similarity in label design caused deception in fibre of trade?
Whether this amounted to passing off?
Decision & Principle:
The court held that collective similarity in appearance, even on small items like labels, can cause confusion and is protectable by law.
The fact that the products were in the same class of trade made the similarity more significant.
Relevant to Packaging:
Trade dress extends to labels and tags that indicate source of goods.
📌 7. Whirlpool v. Camtronics (Consumer Electronics Packaging Case)
Facts:
Whirlpool (appliance manufacturer) alleged Camtronics had packaging and trade dress similar enough to Whirlpool’s styling and logos that consumers might think the goods were connected with Whirlpool.
Issues:
Identity of trade channels, similarity in get‑up, and likelihood of confusion.
Decision & Principle:
Court emphasized clear evidence of confusion among customers.
Even sophisticated purchasers may be misled if packaging conveys a deceptive message about origin.
Takeaway:
Likelihood of confusion is central — courts consider how customers perceive packaging in real life.
📌 8. Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) v. Sanjay Dalia — Broader Principle of Distinctiveness
Though not strictly packaging, this case dealt with distinctiveness and how courts measure goodwill and public association of a brand.
Principle:
Distinctiveness — whether inherent or acquired — is core to protecting trade dress.
📌 Core Legal Principles Illustrated by These Cases
✔ A. Trade Dress / Packaging Can Be Protected Even If Unregistered
Unlike registered trademarks, packaging and get‑up (shape, colour scheme, layout) can still be protected if it:
Serves as a badge of origin, and
Is recognized by the relevant consuming public.
✔ B. Passing Off Principles Apply
To succeed, a plaintiff must prove:
Goodwill / reputation in the packaging,
Misrepresentation by the defendant’s get‑up,
Likelihood of confusion causing damage to the plaintiff.
✔ C. ‘Overall Impression’ Matters More Than Individual Elements
Courts don’t isolate one feature (just colour or just logo) — they examine the total visual impact on an average consumer.
✔ D. Consumer Perception Is Key
For look‑alike packaging cases:
Ordinary purchaser’s perspective is crucial.
Courts often apply the “eye‑ball impression test”: would a reasonable consumer be misled at the point of purchase?
✔ E. Injunction Relief Is Common Where Confusion Is Likely
If a prima facie case of passing off or unfair competition is made, Indian courts frequently grant:
Interim injunctions to stop further sales, and
Permanent injunctions upon trial.
📌 Takeaways for Brands & Lawyers
Protect packaging early — but even without registration, strong common law protection exists.
Document consumer perception — surveys and evidence strengthen passing off claims.
Analyse entire get‑up — mix of colours, fonts, layout, shape matters more than one element.
Context of trade channels — similar retail presence increases likelihood of confusion.
RELATED Blog
comments