Boroline v. Borobeauty

Legacy brand defends its identity against dilution"

Overview :

This case features the famous Indian brand “Boroline” defending its long-standing reputation against a newer entrant, “Borobeauty,” which was accused of creating consumer confusion and attempting to associate itself with Boroline’s goodwill.

Facts & Findings :

⦁ Boroline has been a household name in India since pre-independence times, known for its antiseptic cream.

⦁ A company launched cosmetic products under the name “Borobeauty,” adopting similar packaging and color schemes.

⦁ Boroline contended that the name was deceptively similar and was meant to leverage its reputation, especially in the personal care segment.

⦁ The defendant argued that the term “Boro” is generic and cannot be monopolized, but failed to prove distinctiveness or separate consumer base.

Suggestion :

Legacy and heritage brands should proactively monitor the market and take swift legal action to prevent dilution. Courts take a strong stance in favor of brands with deep-rooted public recognition.

Judgment :

⦁ Date : July 28, 2011

⦁ The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Boroline, stating that “Borobeauty” created an impression of being an extension or variant of Boroline.

⦁ The court granted a permanent injunction against the use of the infringing mark and stressed the significance of brand distinctiveness built over generations.