Britannia Industries Limited Vs Rajat Chawla

Head Note of the Case

In a detailed single-judge order dated 24 March 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed Britannia Industries Limited’s application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC in its trademark infringement suit against Rajat Chawla (proprietor of Madhve Global Enterprises). The Court held that the plaint was deliberately vague for failing to identify the specific registered trademark (out of 19 cited) alleged to be infringed. On merits, the rival composite marks “BRITANNIA” (in its geometric pentagonal device) and “RENEWTRIA” (in a similar pentagonal device) were found not deceptively similar when compared as a whole, as the prominent wordmarks are starkly dissimilar and the geometric pentagonal structure alone is neither the dominant feature nor has acquired distinctiveness without the word “BRITANNIA”. The goods (bakery/dairy vs flavoured candies/confectionery) and trade channels (e-commerce only) were held distinct, with no likelihood of confusion. The judgments in Adidas AG v. Praveen Kumar and Nilkamal Crates v. Reena Rajpal were distinguished on facts. The application was dismissed with a direction to the defendant to maintain and file audited sales accounts every six months. The order clarifies the law on pleading infringement, comparison of composite marks as a whole, and the evidentiary burden to prove distinctiveness of a device element in isolation.

1. Introduction

This is a commercial trademark infringement and passing-off suit filed by Britannia Industries Limited (a leading Indian food major) against Rajat Chawla, sole proprietor of Madhve Global Enterprises. The dispute concerns the alleged copying of Britannia’s geometric pentagonal device mark (a five-sided stylised/curvaceous structure with arches) used with the word “BRITANNIA” since 2018, by the defendant’s mark “RENEWTRIA” used on flavoured candies and confectionery since October 2022. The plaintiff sought an ex-parte/interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the “RENEWTRIA” device mark.

Court, after hearing detailed arguments and perusing pleadings, dismissed the interim injunction application (I.A. 31014/2024) on 24 March 2026 (reserved on 17 November 2025). The judgment is notable for its strong emphasis on precise pleading under Order VI Rule 2 CPC, the necessity of comparing composite marks as a whole, and the evidentiary requirement to prove that a device element (here, the pentagonal structure) has acquired distinctiveness in isolation from the wordmark.

2. Factual Background

Plaintiff (Britannia): A century-old company (mark adopted since 1918) engaged in bakery (biscuits, bread, cakes) and dairy products. Revenue FY 2022-23 ≈ ₹16,000 crores; advertising spend 2012-2023 > ₹12,000 crores. “BRITANNIA” declared well-known on 08.01.2024. 

Key device marks:

TM Nos. 3827311 (Class 29) & 3827312 (Class 30) dated 08.05.2018 – composite mark with geometric pentagonal structure + “BRITANNIA”.

Blank device TM No. 6056657 (Class 30) filed 08.08.2023, registered during pendency (21.09.2024) in red-green-yellow.

Multiple other registrations (19 in total cited) and copyright registrations.

Defendant: Small-scale manufacturer of flavoured candies, confectionery, cake decorations, preserved fruits, condiments. Adopted “RENEWTRIA” device mark (similar pentagonal structure + word “RENEWTRIA”) claiming use since 10.10.2022. Sells only on e-commerce platforms (Amazon, Flipkart, Jiomart, Meesho). Applied for registration of wordmark “RENEWTRIA” (TM Nos. 6503619 & 6503623).

Discovery: Plaintiff came to know of the defendant’s mark in March 2024 via Trademark Registry search. Issued cease-and-desist notice dated 13.03.2024; defendant replied on 15.04.2024 denying similarity.

3. Procedural Background

Suit: CS(COMM) 480/2024 filed on 29.05.2024 seeking permanent injunction, damages, etc.

Interim Application: I.A. 31014/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC (read with Section 94 & 151 CPC) for temporary injunction.

Written Statement filed by defendant; replication filed by plaintiff.

Arguments heard on multiple dates; reserved on 17 November 2025.

Judgment pronounced on 24 March 2026.

4. Core Dispute

Whether the defendant’s “RENEWTRIA” composite device mark (pentagonal structure + word) infringes the plaintiff’s registered “BRITANNIA” composite device mark under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to interim injunction. Key sub-issues:

Vagueness in identifying the exact infringed registration.

Deceptive similarity (especially the geometric pentagonal device element).

Similarity of goods, trade channels, and likelihood of confusion.

5. Arguments Raised by Both Parties

Plaintiff’s Arguments :

The geometric pentagonal structure is the essential/distinctive feature slavishly copied.

Black-and-white registration gives right to use in any colour; defendant’s black-orange/gold use is infringing.

Near-identity of device structure + same Class 30 goods → high likelihood of confusion/association.

Reliance on Adidas AG v. Praveen Kumar (three stripes case) and Nilkamal Crates v. Reena Rajpal for slavish copying of essential features.

Defendant’s Arguments :

Goods are completely different (candies/confectionery vs bakery/dairy); different trade channels (e-commerce only) and consumers.

Marks must be compared as a whole; wordmarks “BRITANNIA” vs “RENEWTRIA” are phonetically, visually and structurally dissimilar.

Mere geometric pentagonal shape (without wordmark or colour) is not distinctive and lacks acquired distinctiveness; used by others (e.g., Levi’s).

No evidence that plaintiff uses the pentagon standalone; no consumer association with the shape alone.

6. Judgement with Complete Citations and Their Context Referred in Reasoning of the Judge + Final Decision

Hon’ble Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora delivered a 24-page reasoned order dismissing the injunction.

I. Vagueness in Plaint (paras 8–14)

The plaintiff listed 19 registrations but compared the impugned mark only with one black-and-white device in para 31 of the plaint without specifying which registered mark (out of 19) was infringed. This violates Order VI Rule 2 CPC (precise pleading) and prejudices the defendant (Order VIII Rule 5). The Court called the plaint “deliberately vague” and held the application liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. (Even in written submissions, plaintiff referred to five devices including an irrelevant “B” logo.)

II. Deceptive Similarity (paras 16–39)

The Court presumed the relied-upon marks were TM 3827311 & 3827312 (closest to the comparison table) and compared composite marks as a whole.

Key Legal Principle: Rival marks must be compared as a whole; overall impression on average consumer with imperfect recollection matters — not dissection. (Relied on Britannia Industries Ltd. v. ITC Ltd. & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1489, paras 15–17 — extensively quoted for the test that “points of dissimilarity, if sufficient, can also obviate any possibility of confusion” and that prominent features (here the wordmarks) outweigh device similarity.)

Wordmarks “BRITANNIA” and “RENEWTRIA” are prominent and starkly dissimilar in font, style, and impression.

Geometric pentagonal structure is not the dominant/distinctive feature; plaintiff never uses it standalone; no evidence of acquired distinctiveness or goodwill in the shape alone.

Actual use: Plaintiff uses red-yellow-green or purple-gold; defendant uses black-orange. No deceptive similarity from consumer perspective.

III. Goods, Trade Channels & Absence of Confusion (paras 40–42)

Goods are distinct (bakery/dairy vs candies). Defendant sells only online (mindful purchase). No evidence of actual confusion.

IV. Infringement under Section 29 (paras 43–49)

Plaintiff failed to prove:

Similarity of marks (as whole).

Similarity of goods (distinct despite same class).

Likelihood of confusion/association.

Citations distinguished:

Adidas AG v. Praveen Kumar, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8693 (para 45): Goods identical + sole essential feature (three stripes) copied + proven distinctiveness + promotional evidence. Not applicable here.

Nilkamal Crates and Containers v. Reena Rajpal, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7129 (para 45): Identical goods + multiple similarities + defendant’s undertaking to change mark. Not applicable.

Final Decision of the Court (paras 50–54):

Interim injunction application dismissed.

Balance of convenience in favour of defendant; no irreparable injury to plaintiff.

Defendant directed to maintain books of accounts and file audited gross sales statements every six months (March & September) with Registry + copy to plaintiff until final disposal.

Nothing in the order prejudices trial rights.

Suit listed before Roster Bench for directions on 10.04.2026.

7. Point of Law Settled in the Case

Pleading Requirement: In infringement suits, the plaintiff must specifically identify the exact registered trademark alleged to be infringed (Order VI Rule 2 CPC). Blanket reference to multiple registrations renders the plaint vague and liable to dismissal at interim stage.

Comparison of Composite Marks: Courts must compare marks as a whole (word + device + colour + get-up). Prominent wordmarks can outweigh device similarity if dissimilarities are “stark” (Britannia v. ITC, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1489 followed).

Distinctiveness of Device Element: A geometric/device element (e.g., pentagonal structure) used only with a wordmark does not automatically acquire standalone distinctiveness. Plaintiff must prove acquired distinctiveness/goodwill in the device in isolation at interim stage.

Goods & Channels: Even in same class, if actual goods, packaging, and trade channels differ materially (especially e-commerce vs physical), likelihood of confusion is low.

Burden in Interim Stage: Plaintiff must make out a prima facie case of deceptive similarity and irreparable injury; mere registration + device similarity is insufficient without evidence of dominance/distinctiveness of the copied element.

Title: Britannia Industries Limited Vs. Rajat Chawla Sole Proprietor of Madhve Global Enterprises

Date of Order: 24 March 2026 

Case Number: CS(COMM) 480/2024

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2442

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Suggested YouTube Explainer Video Titles

Britannia Loses Interim Injunction Against “RENEWTRIA” Candies – Delhi HC Explains Why Geometric Shape Alone Isn’t Enough

Why Vague Plaint Killed Britannia’s Trademark Case – Landmark Delhi HC Ruling on Pleading Infringement

BRITANNIA vs RENEWTRIA: No Deceptive Similarity When Wordmarks Differ – Full Breakdown

Delhi HC Dismisses Britannia Injunction: Device Marks Must Prove Standalone Distinctiveness

Trademark Lesson 2026: Composite Marks Compared “As a Whole” – Britannia Case Explained

Why Britannia’s Pentagonal Device Didn’t Get Protection Against Candies – Justice Arora’s Key Ruling

E-Commerce Trademark Battle: Britannia Injunction Refused – What Importers & Small Brands Must Know