Get a Quote
Get a Quote and Find Services to Fit Your Needs 50000+ Satisfied Clients
5000+ Licenses & Registration
15 Branches across India
75 Years + Combined experience
A trademark is an intellectual property right. It is essentially a legal protection granted to a distinctive word, symbol or design that identifies a product or service. When an individual or business uses a similar or identical trademark without permission from its owner, trademark infringement takes place.
Basically, trademark infringement refers to the unauthorized usage of a mark that is deceptively similar. Here, deceptively similar means that when an average individual looks at the mark, it is likely to confuse them of the origin of the goods or services.
In this blog post, we’ll take a look at some of the most famous infringement cases in India.
The Trademarks Act 1999 is the current governing law for the registered trademarks in India. Section 29 of the Act defines the concept of trademark infringement. It states that, “a registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark.”
In simple words, a registered trade mark faces infringement when someone uses a mark that is identical or deceptively similar to it and causes potential confusion among the public.
Let’s take a look at some of the most popular trademark infringement cases in India:
Both Sardarbaksh Coffee & Co. and Starbucks Corporation were involved in this litigation as parties. While Starbucks was the one initiating the legal action as plaintiff, Sardarbuksh was the defendant.
Starbucks is one of the most popular chains of coffee shops across the world, and it is famous for its high-quality coffee. In 2015, Delhi saw the emergence of a coffee shop chain known as Sardarbuksh, which established numerous outlets in the city. The brand drew significant public attention because of its striking similarities to Starbucks - a coffee chain famous for its iconic green logo and brand name. The Starbucks logo featured a green-haired figure wearing a crown while Sardarbuksh's logo showed a green turban man who had curving lines flowing from his sides.
The resemblance/similarities between the two logos were really obvious to anyone who came across them, as both of them not only shared the same circular design but also colours. Sardarbuksh's use of green and white colours was the same as that of Starbucks and made the two logos visually comparable. On top of that, both brands’ names had a similar rhythm and structure too. This further contributed to the confusion. That’s not all. Both the coffee shops offered products and services that were strikingly similar in nature.
This raised serious concerns about consumer confusion as well as the infringement of intellectual property rights of Starbucks. In 2017, Starbucks sent the defendants a letter of demand. Upon receiving the letter, the defendants decided to make necessary adjustments to their trademark. This includes switching to a color scheme that consisted of black and yellow colors. After that, they continued their business by utilizing the new layout. But that’s not exactly where that battle ended. There’s more to it.
Starbucks then filed a complaint against Sardarbaksh before the Hon’ble Delhi Court for usage of the word “Sardarbaksh” as it sounded very similar to “Starbucks”. The legal action occurred since Starbucks believed that Sardarbaksh was infringing on its registered trademark.
As a result, the defendant changed the name of Sardarbaksh Coffee & Co. to Sardarji-Bakhsh Coffee & Co. This allowed them to accurately represent their business operations.
The plaintiff and defendant met on September 27 to discuss terms and conditions of the agreement. A copy of the same was provided to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. It was also agreed upon that the defendant would have the right to sue the offender in question if a third party used the term “Bakhsh”. Moreover, it was decided that the defendant would change the name of all of its locations to “Sardarji-Bakhsh & Co.” In accordance with these terms and conditions, the legal dispute between the plaintiff and defendant was resolved and the settlement finally came to an end.
Case 2: Plaintiff Indigo vs. Defendant Mahindra
Indigo is the largest airline in India based on fleet size. In late November, 2024, the airline initiated legal proceedings against Mahindra Electric Automobile on the grounds of trademark infringement. In this dispute, the contested mark is “6E”, a code used by Indigo for various branding and operational purposes.
Indigo asserted that Mahindra’s proposed usage for its new e-vehicle series resulted in violation of legal rights under the Trademarks Act 1999. The “6E” mark is crucial for Indigo’s branding strategy and is featured prominently across its numerous service offerings like 6E Prime, 6E Flex and 6E Add-ons.
It was in 2015 that Indigo’s “6E” secured trademark registration from the TM Registry across multiple classes: electronic advertising (Class 9), printed promotional materials (Class 16) and transport services (Class 39). The legal protection shows the importance of 6E when it comes to preserving the market identity of Indigo airline.
Mahindra’s defense was that its use of BE 6E is distinguishable from Indigo’s 6E. The automaker emphasized that its branding put a priority on BE as the primary identity. The defender explained the 6E served as a secondary element only, not the primary.
Also, the automobile company’s registration under Class 12, which covers automobiles, received the approval of the Trademarks Registrar. This further substantiated its claim for usage of 6E in a lawful manner. Mahindra argued that the risk of consumer confusion was eliminated since the aviation industry and e-vehicle industry were different in nature.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court heard the matter on 9th December, 2024. The court directed the defendant to refrain from using the 6E mark. In compliance with the directives of the court, Mahindra renamed its e-vehicle to BE 6 and also issued a public announcement regarding the changes.
Amul is a popular Indian dairy brand and has been in operation since 1958. It sued an Italy-based company on the grounds that it violated the Indian dairy brand’s trademark rights. The defendant has been in the confectionery business under the brand name “Amuleti” since 2020, and was accused of using a deceptively similar trademark to Amul’s registered TM.
Plaintiff had claimed that the defendant’s products were being sold online and were accessible to customers in India. Amul argued the defendant’s brand had visual similarity and caused potential consumer confusion. It also outlined its recognition as a well-known trademark by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2015. The alleged infringement by Amuleti was discovered by Amul in August 2024.
The Delhi High Court issued interim orders and restrained the defendant from usage, sale, and promotion of “Amuleti” marks or any marks that were similar to “Amul” across all the platforms. The defendant got banned from using the “Amul” trademark. The court ordered it to remove infringing product listings from their website. It was ordered to surrender all materials that bore the disputed marks.
This is another famous trademark infringement case in India. Both the plaintiff and defendant bear the exact same name. However, one is a local Pune eatery while the other is a global fast-food chain Burger King Corporation. The legal battle between them lasted for 13 years.
The trademark infringement battle began in 2011 when Burger King Corporation, a US-based company with +13,000 outlets globally, filed a lawsuit against the owners of Pune’s Burger King i.e., Anahita and Shapoor Irani.
Burger King Corporation sought a permanent injunction to prevent the owners of the local Pune eatery from using the ‘Burger King’ name. It claimed that the same was damaging their brand’s reputation.
They also demanded an amount of Rs. 20 lakh in damages and argued that the name of the Pune restaurant caused irreparable harm to their brand’s reputation. However, the court favoured Iranis in its ruling. It highlighted that they had been using the Burger King name for their eatery since 1992. This was way before the US-based company entered the Indian market in the year 2014.
Judge Vedpathak mentioned that the Burger King Corporation's arguments lacked strength and evidence. They could not prove that Pune Restaurant’s usage of name perplexed or deceived the customers.
As a result of the ruling, the Pune-based Burger King continues to carry out its business operations with the same brand name.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Britannia Industries in a trademark infringement battle against Desi Bites Snack, and ensured protection to the trademark Good Day. The case was filed in 2024. Britannia sued Desi Bites over its sale of sweets like Soan Papdi and Papad under the trademark ‘Good Day’. The court granted ex parte ad interim injunction against Desi Bites and restrained it from using the mark in any manner.
Britannia asserted that Good Day, registered under Class 30 since 1986, had attracted immense goodwill and brand recognition in the domestic market. The legal team of FMCG argued that Britannia had become popular in the bakery and confectionery sector. They asserted that the defendant’s use of an identical mark was an intentional attempt to exploit the plaintiff’s goodwill.
The defendant did not appear in the court despite being served several notices and left the matter to be decided on the submissions of the plaintiff.
Justice Mini Pushkarna presided over the matter and recognized the established goodwill and brand reputation linked with the Good Day trademark of Britannia. The Hon’ble Court observed that the identical use of the mark by defendants could confuse the consumers and infringe upon the intellectual property rights of the plaintiff and affect its brand reputation.
The trademark infringement cases mentioned in this post showcase the importance of trademark registration when it comes to protecting the goodwill and reputation of a brand as well as ensuring consumer trust. These cases also demonstrate how the judicial system addressed the trademark disputes to prevent consumer confusion and promote fair competition among players across various industries.
Now that you have understood the importance of trademarks in India, it is time for you to register a trademark for your brand. Connect with Registrationwala’s legal consultants to secure a trademark as smoothly and effortlessly as possible.
Want to know More ?
