INTRODUCTION
The case of Parle Products (P) Ltd Vs. J.P. & Co. (1972 AIR 1359, 1972 SCR (3) 289, AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT 1359) is a leading case on trademark infringement which was decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1972. It is a case based on the Indian Trademark Law, particularly based on the issue of deceptive similarity as defined under section 2(d) of the Trade and Merchandise Act,1958.
The case covers section 21(1) of the Trademark Act, 1940. According to this section, the registration of a person in the register as proprietor of a trade mark in respect of any goods gave to that person the, exclusive right to the use of the Trade mark in relation to those goods.
That right was to be deemed to be infringed by any person who, not being the proprietor of the trade mark or a registered user thereof using by way of the permitted use, used a mark identical with it or so nearly resembling it as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion, in the course of trade, in relation to any goods in respect of which it was registered.
Another section which it covers is sec 28(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Act,1958, which states that the registration of a trade mark in Part A or Part B of the register gave to the registered proprietor of the trade mark the exclusive right to the use of the trade mark in relation to the goods in respect of which the trade mark was registered and to obtain relief in respect of the infringement of the trade mark in the manner provided by the Act.
It is a vital precedent that elaborates the legal proceedings surrounding the trademark law and protection to such marks. It protects not only the name of the product but also the colour scheme, trade dress and design.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Parle Products is a confectionary company in the production of biscuits with other confectionary items and has several trademarks registered under its name. One of such trademarks includes the word ‘Gluco’ used on their half pound biscuits packet.
Their another registered trademark is a wrapper with its colour scheme, general setup and an entire collocation of words registered under the Trademarks Act, 1940.
The appellant’s wrapper is of a buff colour which also depicts a farmyard along with a girl in the centre carrying a pail of water, with cows and hens with her along with a background of farmyard house and trees.
The Parle Products also claimed that they have been selling goods for quite some years which help them build a goodwill and also their value has been maintained in the market. In March 1961, the plaintiff came across an advertisement of the defendant’s company which contained similar wrapper and colour scheme and that proved to be deceptively similar, according to the plaintiff.
The Parle Products asserted that this act of defendant constitutes the trademark infringement. After several notice to them, they did not cease their operations and persisted in manufacturing, selling and using the wrappers as complained of.
The defendant further pleaded that their own wrapper contained the picture of a girl supporting with one band a bundle of hay on her head and carrying a sickle and a bundle of food in the other, the cow and hens being unlike those of the plaintiffs’ wrappers. There was also said to be difference in the design of the buildings on the two wrappers and the words printed on the two wrappers were distinct and separate.
ISSUES RAISED
1) Whether J.P. & Co.’s product packaging is deceptively similar to that of the Parle Products ‘Glucose Biscuits’?
2) Whether such similarity in overall product get up and packaging, despite the different names, constituted an infringement of trademark or passing off?
3) What parameters should be taken while determining whether the two products will cause deception or confusion in the minds of general public?
CONTENTIONS
Arguments given by the Plaintiff
– The Parle Products claimed that their mark ‘Glucose Biscuits’ packaging had a different trade dress which has been created with the passage of time.
– Parle Products also claimed that the defendant i.e. the J.P. & Co. has a deceptively similar packaging, design and colour which might confuse the general public.
– The Parle Products also emphasized the overall packaging must be considered rather a smaller portion of it that is the product name.
– Parle Products also claimed that the defendants have been trying to jeopardize the goodwill or value of plaintiff.
– The Parle Products also pointed out that similarities would deceive the consumers or cause confusion in the minds of the public, especially in the rural area.
Arguments given by the Defendant
– The defendants denied the deceptive similarity and claimed that their product goes by the name ‘Glucobisc’ and not by the name ‘Glucose Biscuits’ which hence is distinct.
– They also claimed that the term ‘Glucose’ is a common and generic term which any person can use and no individual can claim a trademark over it.
– They also argued that they had no intent of imitating the plaintiff’s products and any similarity was coincidental.
– They also emphasized that there was no similarity in wording and that consumer could distinguish the two products.
– Lastly, they claimed that their product has its own branding and value and that Parle Products Ltd. could not monopolize the idea of Glucose Biscuits.
ORDER/JUDGMENT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court gave its judgment in the favour of Parle Products and found deceptive similarities in the packaging of J.P. & Co. The overall similarity test focuses on general impression and not the side–by–side comparison as in accordance with the ‘Karly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade (9th edition paragraph 838)’. The SC also emphasized on the first impression test according to which the consumers might get confused from appearance alone. It also said that the trade dress of a product matters which includes colour, design, font, etc. It also held that a generic term does not amount to trademark registration but copying the presentation of such term might mislead.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court lastly granted relief to the Parle Products Ltd. by barring J.P. & Co. from using the same or look alike packaging.
ANALYSIS
– Consumer Oriented Approach: The Hon’ble court gave its judgment with more emphasize on protecting the interest of general public as the trademark protection ensures the general consumer behaviour.
– Overall similarity rather than first impression test: The Hon’ble court emphasized that two products must not be compared side by side, but the whole impression of such products must be considered, hence widening the scope of what qualifies as deceptive similarity.
– No safeguard to generic terms: It was also emphasized that a trademark must not be registered for a generic term or for a word which is used in daily life. As the term ‘Glucose’ is a common and daily use word, then no protection will be given to any company or individual over the registration of the word ‘Glucose’. But it also held that copying one’s presentation is not permissible and hence can be held punishable.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of Parle Products Ltd. Vs. J.P. & Co. influenced Indian Trademark Law on a very large scale. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has had a long lasting effect on the companies as how they are approaching branding and registering trademark. This judgment highlighted the importance of having a distinctive trademark design and serves as deterrent against potential infringers who might mimic the well-known brand.
Read Our Latest Article: UNION BUDGET 2026–27: PROSPECTS, DIFFICULTIES, AND POLICY CONSEQUENCES – J.P. Associates
REFERENCE
- WIPO Lex
- Read the Judgement here:https://jpassociates.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/parle-products-vs-j.p.-co.pdf