{"id":272239,"date":"2022-08-25T12:00:31","date_gmt":"2022-08-25T06:30:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=272239"},"modified":"2022-08-25T12:00:31","modified_gmt":"2022-08-25T06:30:31","slug":"delhi-high-court-grants-interim-injunction-madhav-namkeen-bikaner-ramdev-industries-trademark-infringement-pepsico-lays-legalresearch-legalnews","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/delhi-high-court-grants-interim-injunction-madhav-namkeen-bikaner-ramdev-industries-trademark-infringement-pepsico-lays-legalresearch-legalnews\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court grants ad-interim injunction against Bikaner’s Madhav Namkeens having deceptively similar logo as of Pepsico’s Lays"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Delhi High Court<\/span>: Navin Chawla, J. passed an ad interim injunction against Bikaner's Madhav Namkeens (‘defendant') restraining them from using similar logo\/marks as that of Pepsico's Lays (‘plaintiff') as the plaintiffs were able to make out a good prima facie in its favour.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff 1 is the registered proprietor of the ‘Sun Banner'<\/span> device, which is registered under Class 29 and for the purposes of promoting the device mark, it has spent in excess of USD 1.2 Billion from the years 2008-2020. In India itself, the marketing and advertising expenses incurred by the plaintiffs for the promotion of the same has been in excess of Rs 855 Crore.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the adoption of a similar logo for allied goods, i.e.namkeens, by the defendant. The two marks are alleged to be deceptively similar and the intention of the defendant, as alleged, is only to ride on the reputation and goodwill generated by the plaintiffs. The pictorial description is as below:<\/p>\n

\"\"\"\"<\/p>\n

The Court noted that these are goods that are bought off the shelf in normal grocery shops and therefore, there is a likelihood of confusion, especially keeping in view the unwary consumer. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants inasmuch as the plaintiffs have spent a huge amount in popularizing its device mark. The plaintiffs are also liable to suffer grave irreparable damages in the form of dilution of its mark by the use of a deceptively similar logo by the defendant.<\/p>\n

The Court, thus, opined that that the plaintiffs have been able to make out a good prima facie in its favour.<\/p>\n

The Court appointed Mr. Attul Bhuchar as a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the defendant.<\/p>\n

The Court gave following directions to the Local Commissioner:<\/p>\n