17th June, 2025 - 6:41 am Categories: Trademark 0 Comments

Amul – The Taste of India’, this brand and tagline is known to almost every Indian household and is very popular brand, but ever wondered what if anyone use this name for selling their own products? Does a normal prudent person have time to look whether this product is the one which has the trademark or is it passing off it as one? All these questions have been discussed below along with the opinion of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

Background

Both the plaintiffs are registered Cooperative Societies and the plaintiff no. 1 under a License Agreement dated 15^th January 2001, permitted plaintiff no. 2, to market products with the trademark ‘AMUL’ and its various variants.

The suit was filed in response to the advertising and offer for sale of impugned products by the defendant to the public. The defendant was found to be engaged in the business of dealing in pharmaceutical tablets, i.e., Pharmaceutical Preparation, which is seemingly used as an

antipsychotic medication under the mark ‘AMUL’, being sold on various E-commerce websites such as www.1mg.com, www.company.pharmahopers.com, www.indiamart.com.

Once the legal notice dated 13^th July, 2022, was served upon the defendants, calling upon them to cease and desist from using the plaintiffs’ well-known mark ‘AMUL’. A reply came stated that defendant is the owner as they invented the trade mark . The defendants also filed a trademark application eight days after receiving the legal notice, which brought the current suit. By this act of parties it has been cleared that the defendant had a malafide intention to use the trademark without the prior permission because if it had really invented this name and not aware about it then it would have applied for trademark beforehand and not after the notice.

It is also interesting to note that no written statement was filled by the defendant and before passing the final judgement the court on order dated 09^th December, 2022, passed an interim order to restrained defendant from dealing in goods and services using the name/mark/logo ‘AMUL’ or any other mark name/mark/logo, which is deceptively similar, to the registered trademark of the plaintiffs.

Decision of the Court

While deciding the case in Favour of plaintiff the High Court observed that the conduct of the defendants highlights their malafide and dishonesty in adopting the same mark, as that of the plaintiffs’. Thus, the defendants have clearly infringed the plaintiffs’ registered trademark, which, has also been recognized as a well-known trademark. The trademark ‘AMUL’ is included as Item 66 in the Registrar of Trademarks’ List of Well-Known Marks. Therefore, the defendant cannot claim to be unaware of the prior existence or the reputation of the plaintiffs’ ‘AMUL’ trademark.

The court also clarified that it is irrelevant whether the product which is infringing the trademark is the same as that of the product having the trademark because a well-known trademark is one which is popular among consumer so much that mentioning such name would automatically make the buyer relate it to the popular brand and therefore putting their faith in it while buying such product. In the present case although ‘Amul’ is not producing medicine and not selling it but the use of its name by other sellers will lead to confusion among citizen and therefore any trademark declared as well-known trademark cannot be used irrespective of the type of product they are offering.

During the investigation by Local commissioner in Himachal Pradesh many boxes with infringed brand name of ‘Amul’ was discovered which contained medicine which too had the name ‘Amul’ on it. The local commissioner seized the products and sent the report to the hon’ble court with all the necessary details.

Following orders were passed regarding the suit:

1. A decree of permanent injunction was passed in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant to restrain the use of logo/ brand name ‘Amul’ in selling, manufacturing and all other activity.
2. Destruction of infringing materials like labels/packaging material
3. Granted cost of Rs.4,00,000 and Damages of Rs. 1,00,000and the same shall be paid by defendant within 6 months, delaying which would make defendant to pay the amount with 9% interest.

This case where a well know trademark was being misused by Bio Logic and Psychotropics India

(P) Ltd for selling their products by passing off it with the trademark has raised and answered a very important question that no person has time and energy to navigate whether the product is the one with trademark or not. Even though in the present discussed case the product manufactured or advertised by the defendant was medicine which is not dealt by the trademark owner but still an ordinary person would relate the product with the well-known trademark and buy it with the belief that it is related to the popular brand.

The court while addressing this issue concluded that using such tradename would only amount to confusion between the public and it is way to sell the products. Therefore, in public interest entities should not use deceitful methods just to increase their sale and numbers.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court while keeping in mind all these points had passed a decree of permanent injunction and levied the defendant with cost of Rs.4,00,000 and Damages of Rs. 1,00,000. This case would be remembered as a very relevant case whenever there would be case of infringement of well-known trademark and the relief given in this case is a very important part as the court had also instructed to destroy every packaging having the infringed name on it, like wrapper, label etc.

As the economy and competition in a country grows the government and entities need to look for unethical practices which might lead to undue advantage to one and loss to other. To stop such practices the consumers must be educated, always keep a close eye on the market movements and set rules and regulations if anything goes wrong. Through these various practices it is possible to stop such practices and promote growth and encourage healthy competition.

Author: Ms. Aayushi Jain, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References 

1. hhttps://www.theippress.com/2024/10/13/guardians-of-the-brand-the-amul-trademark- saga-in-the-delhi-high-court/
2. https://www.scconline.com/Members/SearchResult.aspx
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/74157932/