Trademark Disputes In Food And Beverage.
I. Trademark Disputes in the Food and Beverage Industry – Overview
Trademark disputes in the food and beverage sector arise frequently because:
High consumer turnover (daily consumption products)
Low degree of consumer attention (ordinary purchasers)
Strong reliance on brand names, packaging, and trade dress
Risk to public health if confusion occurs
Expansion of brands into allied food products
Courts apply stricter standards in F&B cases due to the likelihood of confusion among consumers who may be illiterate, hurried, or price-sensitive.
Key legal issues involved:
Deceptive similarity
Passing off
Trade dress imitation
Honest concurrent use
Well-known trademarks
Likelihood of confusion vs actual confusion
II. Important Case Laws (Detailed Explanation)
1. Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001)
Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Both parties used similar marks: “FALCIGO” and “FALCITAB”
Both were medicinal products, but the principles laid down apply equally to food and beverages, especially consumables
Issue:
What factors should courts consider while determining deceptive similarity?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for determining trademark infringement and passing off.
Legal Principles Laid Down:
Courts must consider:
Nature of the marks (word, label, composite)
Degree of resemblance (phonetic, visual, structural)
Nature of goods (food & beverages demand higher care)
Class of purchasers
Mode of purchasing
Any surrounding circumstances
Importance in F&B:
Courts later applied this reasoning to food products, noting that consumers often rely on memory and imperfect recollection
Even phonetic similarity alone may be sufficient to establish infringement
2. Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (2018)
Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Plaintiff: Owner of “NANDINI” (milk and dairy products)
Defendant: Used “NANDHINI” for restaurants and food services
Both operated in food-related sectors
Issue:
Does similarity in name automatically lead to infringement?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held no infringement, but clarified important principles.
Reasoning:
Products were different in nature (dairy vs restaurant services)
Trade channels and consumer base were distinct
No likelihood of confusion was established
Key Takeaway:
Trademark protection in F&B is not absolute
Courts examine market reality, not theoretical confusion
However, if both parties sold similar edible products, result could differ
3. Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore (1972)
Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Parle’s famous “Gluco Biscuits” packaging was copied
Defendant used deceptively similar wrapper, colour scheme, and design
Issue:
Is copying of trade dress alone sufficient for infringement?
Judgment:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Parle.
Legal Principle:
Overall similarity, not minute dissimilarities, matters
Average consumer does not analyze packaging in detail
Importance in F&B:
Established trade dress protection
Widely applied in cases involving:
Biscuits
Chocolates
Snacks
Soft drinks
4. Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. (1960)
Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Plaintiff used “GLUCOVITA” (glucose-based food supplement)
Defendant used “GLUVITA” for similar food products
Issue:
Whether phonetic similarity can cause consumer confusion?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that GLUVITA infringed GLUCOVITA.
Reasoning:
Both were nutritional food products
Phonetic similarity was strong
Consumers could easily be misled
Key Contribution:
Established that phonetic similarity is crucial in food products
Even partial imitation can cause infringement
5. Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta (1963)
Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Marks involved: “AMRITDHARA” and “LAKSHMANDHARA”
Though medicinal, principles apply to food and beverages
Issue:
How should courts test deceptive similarity?
Judgment:
Court ruled in favor of AMRITDHARA.
Legal Test Introduced:
View the mark as a whole
Apply the test of average intelligence and imperfect recollection
Do not dissect marks into parts
Application to F&B:
Courts later used this logic in cases involving:
Soft drinks
Mineral water
Packaged foods
6. ITC Ltd. v. Britannia Industries Ltd. (2016)
Delhi High Court
Facts:
Dispute over “Nutri Choice” and “Nutri Value”
Both used for health food biscuits
Issue:
Whether descriptive elements in food trademarks can be protected?
Judgment:
Court held that descriptive terms alone cannot be monopolized.
Reasoning:
“Nutri” was descriptive of nutritional quality
No exclusive rights unless secondary meaning is proven
Importance:
Clarified limits of trademark protection in health foods
Encouraged fair competition
7. McDonald’s Corporation v. McCurry Restaurant (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Facts:
Defendant used “Mc” prefix and similar branding for food services
Judgment:
Court restrained the defendant from using deceptively similar branding
Legal Principle:
Well-known trademarks enjoy broader protection
Even indirect association can amount to infringement in F&B
III. Key Legal Principles Emerging from These Cases
Stricter scrutiny in food and beverage cases
Phonetic similarity is often decisive
Trade dress protection is crucial
Consumer perception outweighs technical distinctions
Descriptive terms require secondary meaning
Well-known food brands receive enhanced protection
IV. Conclusion
Trademark disputes in the food and beverage industry are treated with heightened judicial sensitivity due to consumer health, purchasing habits, and market realities. Indian courts have consistently emphasized likelihood of confusion, overall similarity, and public interest over rigid legal formalism.
RELATED Blog
comments