Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. Vs. Patanjali Biscuits Pvt. Ltd.21.04.2026:OSA No. 263 of 2020: MadHC: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi
Facts of the Case
The appellant, Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., a major private sector dairy in India, has used the registered trademark "AROKYA" for its milk and dairy products (Class 29) since 1994. The appellant alleged that the respondents (Patanjali Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.) infringed upon this trademark by selling biscuits under the mark "PATANJALI AAROGYA" (Class 30).
The appellant sought a permanent injunction for infringement and passing off, claiming the marks were phonetically similar and likely to cause consumer confusion. The respondents contended that "Aarogya" is a generic Sanskrit term meaning "well-being" and that their products were distinct and registered under a different class (Class 30).
Issues for Consideration
- Whether a suit for infringement is maintainable against a registered trademark holder under the Trade Marks Act.
- Whether the products (milk vs. biscuits) and trademarks ("AROKYA" vs. "PATANJALI AAROGYA") were sufficiently similar to cause confusion.
- Whether the learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the suit via a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC.
Arguments
- Appellant: Argued that the phonetic similarity of "Arokya" and "Aarogya" created bad faith and dishonesty, damaging their established goodwill. They maintained that since biscuits contain milk, there was an overlap in product association.
- Respondents: Argued that Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act protects co-existing registered owners of similar marks. They highlighted that the prefix "Patanjali" made their brand distinctive and that the appellant did not hold a registration under Class 30 (biscuits).
Judgment
The Division Bench upheld the single Judge’s decision to dismiss the suit through a summary judgment. The Court found:
- No Real Prospect of Success: Applying the principle from Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Ltd., the Court held the appellant could not claim a monopoly over a mark for products they do not produce.
- Distinctiveness: The goods falling under Class 30 (biscuits) were found to be entirely different from those in Class 29 (milk products).
- Statutory Protection: Under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, the respondents were protected as registered holders of their mark.
- Procedural Validity: The Court affirmed that there were no compelling reasons to record oral evidence, justifying the use of summary judgment under the Commercial Courts Act.
Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the summary judgment in favor of the respondents was sustained.
Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi"
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
No comments:
Post a Comment