Delhi High Court: In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking temporary injunction, Mini Pushkarna, J., stated that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie case for grant of injunction and if no ex parte ad interim injunction was granted, the plaintiffs would suffer an irreparable loss. Further, balance of convenience also was in favour of the plaintiffs, and against the defendants.
Thus, till the next date of hearing, the Court restrained Defendant 1 and, or anyone acting on their behalf, from selling, marketing, advertising, promoting or in any other manner using or dealing with the impugned marks 
/‘Amuleti’, or any other marks or logos which were identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ marks, in the physical market or any other online platforms.
Background
Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited-Plaintiff 1 was recognised as Asia’s largest dairy and has been ranked 8th amongst the top dairy organizations of the world as per the survey conducted in 2020 by the International Farm Comparison Network, a leading global dairy knowledge organization. The products under the registered, well-known, reputed, and prior used trademarks ‘AMUL’ and other variants had become very popular and had acquired excellent reputation throughout the territory of India, Asia and the world.
Plaintiff 2 being the registered proprietor of ‘AMUL’ trade marks, had licensed the right to use the ‘AMUL’ trade marks for milk/milk products and other foods and beverages to Plaintiff 1 vide the Trade Mark License Agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff 1 was marketing various products using the well-known trade mark ‘AMUL’ throughout the country and abroad.
The present suit was filed against Terre Primitive-Defendant 1, a company incorporated under the laws of Italy and was engaged in business of selling, marketing, promoting and advertising its cookies and chocolate covered biscuits under the impugned marks 
/‘Amuleti’, which were identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ well-known mark ‘AMUL’. Defendant 1’s products bearing the impugned marks were sold, advertised, marketed and promoted through Defendant 1’s website and also, through social media platforms.
The plaintiff further submitted that a side-by-side comparison of Defendant 1’s impugned marks and the plaintiffs’ mark ‘AMUL’ showed that the said marks were structurally and visually similar. Therefore, it was bound to cause confusion in the minds of the unwary and gullible public. Defendant 1’s impugned mark ‘Amuleti’ wholly encompassed and retained the plaintiffs’ mark ‘Amul’ and had added the suffix ‘eti’ to the said impugned marks.
It was further submitted that Defendant 1 had adopted a similar font as plaintiffs’ mark, and the same was done to resemble the plaintiffs’ well-known mark as closely as possible. The plaintiffs have been using the trademark ‘AMUL’ for its products since the 1958 and Defendant 1 had been using the said mark only since July 2020. The plaintiffs submitted that the blatant imitation and adoption of the plaintiffs’ mark by Defendant 1 could not be ruled out as a mere coincidence.
The plaintiffs further submitted that actions of Defendant 1 made it unambiguously clear and evident that the present case was a brazen case of ‘passing off’, wherein, Defendant 1 was misleading the public to believe that the goods being sold by it emanated from the plaintiffs or was associated with the plaintiffs.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie case for grant of injunction and if no ex parte ad interim injunction was granted, the plaintiffs would suffer an irreparable loss. Further, balance of convenience also was in favour of the plaintiffs, and against the defendants.
Thus, till the next date of hearing, the Court restrained Defendant 1, their principal officers, family members, servants, agents, dealer, distributors, franchisees and anyone acting for and, on their behalf, from selling, marketing, advertising, promoting or in any other manner using or dealing with the impugned marks 
/‘Amuleti’, or any other marks or logos which were identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ marks or logos, in the physical market, or social media or e-commerce platforms or any other online platforms.
The Court directed Defendant 1 to take down the listing of products bearing the impugned marks 
/‘Amuleti’, available at URL: https://www.terreprimitive.it/cosa-facciamo/. Further, the Court directed Defendant 1 to surrender to the plaintiffs, for destruction, all goods, advertisement materials, packing materials, cartons, wrappers, labels, which had the impugned marks, or any mark identical/deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ ‘AMUL’ trademarks.
The Court also directed Defendant 3 to block/suspend/delete the URLs pertaining to its social media platform ‘Facebook’ and ‘Instagram, wherein Defendant 1 was promoting, marketing, and selling its products under the impugned marks.
The matter would next be listed on 07-01-2025.
[Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Terre Primitive, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6486, decided on 09-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiffs: Abhishek Singh with Elvin Joshy, J. Amal Anand, Alisha Sharma and Shashwat Tyagi, Advocates.
