"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 initiated a commercial lawsuit against KLF, accusing them of infringing on their trademarks by selling oil in a strikingly similar blue bottle adorned with comparable labels. Marico asserted that they became aware of KLF's products in July 2023 and promptly sought legal action by approaching the court to obtain a restraining order against KLF.

 

On August 18, 2023, the High Court issued an ex-parte ad-interim order, barring KLF from utilizing the purportedly infringing packaging. The court deemed it deceptively akin to Parachute's coconut tree device, broken coconut device, blue bottles/containers, and the comprehensive trade dress.

 

KLF, discontent with the order, lodged an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC to annul the injunction order. The rule specifies that an injunction may be revoked if the party seeking it deliberately presents false or misleading information. Justice Chagla determined that KLF Nirmal Industries couldn't prove that Marico knowingly provided false or misleading statements.

 

Consequently, the application lacked substance and was dismissed. The interim order remains effective until further notice, and the case is scheduled for a 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.

Case Title : Marico Limited v. KLF Nirmal Industries Pvt Ltd