Log in
Show password
Forgot password ?
Become a member for free
Sign up
Sign up
New member
Sign up for FREE
New customer
Discover our services
Dynamic quotes 
  1. Homepage
  2. Equities
  3. India
  4. Bombay Stock Exchange
  5. Future Consumer Limited
  6. News
  7. Summary
    533400   INE220J01025


SummaryMost relevantAll NewsOther languagesPress ReleasesOfficial PublicationsSector newsMarketScreener Strategies

Future Consumer : Identical Packaging Infringement India-Future Group Restrained

12/18/2020 | 01:14am EDT

Recently, Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Future Group Ltd. alleging identical packaging infringement of Plaintiffs copyright combined with a cause of action for passing off, wherein it was found that the latter's products had identical/deceptively similar in packaging to that of Parle's products.

In the present case, Bombay High Court restrained, Future Consumer Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Defendant') from infringing Parle's trademark in terms of the packaging of its products vide passing an ad-interim injunction order.

The Court held that "There is no doubt that the rival labels are being used for identical products under nearly identical packaging and trade dresses. The similarity in the rival packaging/labels cannot be a matter of coincidence." Brief Facts

  • Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. (herein referred to as the 'Plaintiff') is the most chosen Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) brand since 2010. Plaintiff manufactures and sells a range of biscuits however not limited to confectioneries, cakes, wafers, etc.
  • <ul
  • In the years 1939, 1971, and 1996 the Plaintiff began manufacturing its popular biscuits - "MONACO", "KRACKJACK" and "HIDE&SEEK" respectively.
  • <ul
  • Ever since, To secure its statutory rights in the "MONACO", "KRACKJACK" and "HIDE & SEEK" trademark the Plaintiff had applied for and secured trademark registration in respect of the same under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
  • <ul
  • In the months of July 2013, July 2014, and May 2017, the Plaintiff redesigned and created latest packaging for "MONACO", "KRACKJACK" and "HIDE&SEEK", respectively.
  • <ul
  • Further, it was disclosed that the Plaintiff's packaging was created/authored by Mr. Mayank Shah an employee of Plaintiff during his course of employment. Therefore, Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in the packaging.
  • <ul
  • In and around the second week of September 2020, Plaintiff came across the Defendants, biscuits bearing the mark "CRACKO", "KRACKER KING" and "PEEKA-BOO" having trade dresses/packaging/labels which were identical with and/or deceptively similar to and/or substantial reproduction of Plaintiff's Packaging.
  • Issues Involved

    After having found Defendant's impugned products, Plaintiff produced photographs of Defendant's impugned products "CRACKO", "KRACKER KING", & "PEEK-A-BOO" which were identical/deceptively similar to Plaintiff's products "MONACO", "KRACKJACK", and "HIDE AND SEEK" with a cash memo of sale of the impugned products in Big Bazaar outlet in Ville Parle, Mumbai.

    The aforementioned findings resulted in the formation of the following issues before the Bombay High Court:

    1. Whether the Plaintiffs are the owners of Copyright in Plaintiff's packaging of their products "MONACO", "KRACKJACK" and "HIDE & SEEK"?
    2. Whether the Defendants have blatantly copied the Plaintiff's packaging and label concerning their aforementioned products?

    Plaintiff's Contentions

  • It was submitted that according to the Nielsen Report for the year 2010 Plaintiff's brand PARLE-G was certified as the world's largest selling biscuit brand.
  • <ul
  • It is stated that since the beginning, Plaintiff has been openly, continuously, and extensively using Plaintiffs' Packaging, upon and in respect of their goods in India.
  • <ul
  • It is also stated that Plaintiff has taken efforts to popularize their products bearing its Packaging and have been expending substantial sums of money and efforts towards popularizing and promoting sales of the relevant goods in India.
  • <ul
  • It was submitted that its Packaging includes the features thereof that have become distinctive of its goods and connote and denote to the members of the general public and trade the goods of Plaintiff alone and no one else.
  • <ul
  • It was argued that the Defendants have intentionally stocked their impugned products on the shelves alongside Plaintiffs' products
  • <ul
  • It was contended that the Defendants had copied every element of Plaintiffs' Packaging including the layout, color combination, placement, and all distinctive elements and features of Plaintiffs' Packaging to the last millimeter.
  • <ul
  • He further submitted that Defendant's usage of Plaintiff's trade dresses, labels, and packaging amounted to an infringement of Plaintiff's copyrights and passing off.
  • Comparison between the two goods are reproduced below:


    Identical Packaging Infringement- Similarity in rival packaging cannot be coincidence

  • It was noted by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court') that a comparison of the rival products hardly leaves any doubt about how Defendants have blatantly copied Plaintiffs' Packaging/labels. There is no doubt that the rival labels are being used for identical products under nearly identical packaging and trade dresses. The labels/artworks/packaging/trade dresses of Defendants' "CrackO", "Kracker King" and "Peek-a-Boo" products are a reproduction of Plaintiffs' Packaging used in respect of their "MONACO", "KRACKJACK" and "HIDE & SEEK" products and/or reproductions of substantial parts thereof. Defendants must have had Plaintiffs' products before them while designing the impugned packaging. The similarity in the rival packaging/labels cannot be a matter of coincidence.
  • <ul
  • The Court held that there were prima facie evidences that the Plaintiffs were the original owners of copyrights on the packaging of their products through which their brand Parle has gained substantial value in terms of reputation and goodwill.
  • <ul
  • With regards to the findings, Bombay High Court passed an ad-interim injunction order restraining the Defendants from reproducing, manufacturing, selling its products which are identical or deceptively similar to that of Plaintiff's products' packaging, labelling, trade dress, layout or color scheme to pass off their impugned products as the Plaintiff's products.
  • Related Posts India:

    India: Developing Jurisprudence on Trade Dress


    For further information please contact at S.S Rana & Co. email: info@ssrana.in or call at (+91- 11 4012 3000). Our website can be accessed at www.ssrana.in

    The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

    S.S. Rana & Co. Advocates
    S.S. Rana & Co. Advocates
    81/2, 2nd & 3rd Floors
    Aurobindo Marg
    New Delhi
    Tel: 114012-3000
    Fax: 114012-3000
    E-mail: Vikrant@ssrana.com
    URL: www.ssrana.in

    © Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source Business Briefing

    08/13Future Consumer Limited Reports Earnings Results for the First Quarter Ended June 30, 2..
    08/04LIVESTOCK HIGHLIGHTS : Top Stories of the Day
    06/28FUTURE CONSUMER : Trims Consolidated Loss in Fiscal Q4
    06/26Future Consumer Limited Reports Earnings Results for the Fourth Quarter Ended March 31,..
    06/22South Korean Stocks Close Higher on Optimism over US Fed Policy; Daewoo Shipbuilding Ri..
    06/21KOSPI COMPOSITE INDEX : South Korea's Producer Prices Rise for Seventh Straight Month in M..
    04/29Future Consumer Limited Announces Executive Changes
    03/30SECTOR UPDATE : Energy Stocks Retreat Pre-Bell Tuesday
    03/30ExxonMobil, Porsche Test Lower-Carbon Fuel in Race Conditions
    More news
    Sales 2021 11 845 M 161 M 161 M
    Net income 2021 -4 833 M -65,7 M -65,7 M
    Net Debt 2021 5 869 M 79,7 M 79,7 M
    P/E ratio 2021 -2,44x
    Yield 2021 -
    Capitalization 14 466 M 196 M 197 M
    EV / Sales 2020 0,49x
    EV / Sales 2021 1,49x
    Nbr of Employees 451
    Free-Float 45,7%
    Duration : Period :
    Future Consumer Limited Technical Analysis Chart | MarketScreener
    Full-screen chart
    Technical analysis trends FUTURE CONSUMER LIMITED
    Short TermMid-TermLong Term
    Income Statement Evolution
    Managers and Directors
    Sailesh Raj Kedawat Chief Financial Officer
    Ghyanendra Nath Bajpai Chairman
    Manoj Prataprai Gagvani Secretary, Compliance Officer & Head-Legal
    Arun Gupta President-Business Development & Investments
    Adhiraj Anil Harish Independent Non-Executive Director
    Sector and Competitors
    1st jan.Capi. (M$)
    WALMART INC.-0.98%398 030
    SYSCO CORPORATION2.53%38 990
    AHOLD DELHAIZE N.V.21.94%33 998
    THE KROGER CO.27.24%30 050