LT Foods Limited Vs Murli Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.

LT Foods Limited Vs Murli Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.:CS(COMM) 574/2025:09.07.2025:High Court of Delhi : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

In this case, the plaintiff, LT Foods Limited, approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of its registered trademarks ‘DAAWAT’ and ‘DAWAT’, alleging infringement and passing off by the defendant, Murli Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff is a leading global rice and rice-based food products manufacturer with more than 70 years of presence in the market. The marks in question were originally adopted by the plaintiff's predecessor, Lal Chand Tirath Ram Rice Mills, in 1985. LT Foods Limited took over this business in 1999 and claims continuous use of the marks since then. The plaintiff holds multiple trademark registrations for ‘DAAWAT’ and ‘DAWAT’, including Indian registrations dating back to 1987 and international registrations.

The core dispute arose when LT Foods discovered in May 2025 that Murli Flour Mills was selling ‘Jeera’ (cumin seeds) under the mark ‘DAWAT’. A cease and desist notice was sent to the defendant on 10th May 2025, to which the defendant responded on 15th May 2025, refusing to stop the use of the mark and asserting that their goods were different from those of the plaintiff. LT Foods alleged that the defendant’s adoption of an identical mark in a similar curvaceous style was intended to create confusion among consumers and wrongfully benefit from the goodwill associated with the plaintiff’s brand.

The Court observed that the plaintiff’s trademarks had already been recognized as well-known by a coordinate bench in 2022 and declared well-known by the Registrar of Trademarks in 2024. A prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off was made out against the defendant. Since the defendant failed to appear despite service, the Court proceeded to consider the interim relief.

The Court held that there was clear evidence of the defendant copying the plaintiff’s mark in both text and stylization, leading to a likelihood of consumer confusion. The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, and irreparable injury would result if the defendant were allowed to continue using the impugned mark. Public interest was also implicated, as consumers might be misled into believing there was a connection between the defendant’s goods and the plaintiff’s products.

Consequently, the Court issued an interim injunction restraining Murli Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., along with its directors, officers, agents, vendors, and dealers, from producing, selling, advertising, promoting, or exporting any product bearing the mark ‘DAWAT’ or any deceptively similar variant.