The year of legal battles: Brands that went to court to protect their trademark

New Delhi: Remember the Indigo versus Mahindra tussle, in which Mahindra was taken to court after it used the ‘6E’ label for its new electric cars? Well, that wasn’t a one-off case. 2024 saw multiple cases of trademark infringement in which brands took each other to court.

Here are some of the notable trademark infringement cases of 2024:

PhonePe versus PhonePey Loan: In the PhonePe versus PhonePey Loan case, the Delhi High Court ordered AGF Finlease India to refrain from using the trade name "PhonePey Loan" for its online lending services. The court determined that the name was misleadingly similar to the trademark of Walmart's digital payments gateway, PhonePe. Following a lawsuit by PhonePe alleging trademark infringement, the court ordered GoDaddy to remove the "PhonePey Loan" website.

Kalpataru Group versus UP-based Group: In the Kalpataru Group versus a UP-based business group, Kalpataru firm sued the UP-based firm for its trademark 'Kalpataru' being used unlawfully. Assets connected to the trademark's fraudulent use were seized by the Enforcement Directorate during searches. The Mumbai-based Kalpataru Group made it clear that it is not connected to the UP-based group's fraudulent actions and that it is taking additional legal action to safeguard its trademark.

Emami versus Hindustan Unilever (HUL): Hindustan Unilever (HUL) was prohibited from using the 'Glow & Handsome' trademark for its men's fairness range by the Calcutta High Court in a landmark decision. The trademark was deemed misleadingly similar to Emami's 'Fair & Handsome' brand, which led to this ruling. The court determined that HUL's use of the name might lead to unfair competition and consumer confusion, safeguarding Emami's well-established brand identification and goodwill.

Britannia versus Desi Bites Snack: The Delhi High Court banned Desi Bites Snack from using the 'Good Day' trademark for its line of culinary goods and confections in a landmark decision. The popular 'Good Day' brand owned by Britannia was shielded from trademark infringement by this verdict. To protect Britannia's brand reputation and market position, the court determined that Desi Bites Snack's use of the name could confuse consumers and weaken the company's identity.

IndiGo versus Mahindra: Mahindra Electric was sued for trademark infringement in December 2024 by IndiGo Airlines' parent company, InterGlobe Aviation, for using the '6E' name for its new electric car, the BE 6e. The '6E' name, which is essential to IndiGo's identity and services like 6E Prime and 6E Flex, may cause consumer misunderstanding and weaken its trademark, the company claimed. 

Mahindra argued that they had obtained trademark approval under Class 12 for motor vehicles and that their use of "BE 6e" was in a separate industry. However, the Delhi High Court is still considering the matter.

Burger King versus Pune-based Eatery: The Bombay High Court temporarily granted the US-based fast-food chain relief by prohibiting a Pune-based restaurant from using the name "Burger King." This ruling was made in connection with Burger King Corporation's continuing trademark infringement lawsuit. The court determined that the Pune-based restaurant's use of the name might confuse customers and damage the reputation and goodwill of the well-known brand. The case is still being investigated.

Lacoste versus Crocodile International: In a rare ruling, the Delhi High Court permanently barred Crocodile International from using a logo that was misleadingly similar to a crocodile. This decision put an end to a legal dispute between Lacoste and Crocodile International that lasted more than 20 years. The court determined that Crocodile International's logo violated Lacoste's trademark rights because it was likely to confuse customers.

Amul versus Amuleti: The Delhi High Court ruled in support of the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF) in a case alleging trademark infringement against Terre Primitive, an Italian company. According to the court, Terre Primitive's use of the "Amuleti" mark was misleadingly similar to Amul's unique design and packaging.

Pidilite Industries versus Sanjay Jain: The Delhi High Court declared that Sanjay Jain's trademark "POMA-EX KIWKHEAL" was deceptively similar to Pidilite's "Fevikwik" and ordered its revocation. The court determined that the trademark was registered in bad faith with the intention of taking advantage of Pidilite's well-established reputation and customer confidence.

Fabindia versus Fab India Emporium: Fabindia sued Fab India Emporium for trademark infringement in a major court case, claiming that the defendant's use of the name was misleadingly similar to their trademark "FABINDIA." An order prohibiting Fab India Emporium from using the name was issued by the Delhi High Court. According to Fabindia, the defendant's conduct weakened the distinctiveness of their brand and confused consumers, potentially harming their already-established image.