Delhi High Court orders delisting of cookware named 'Amul' from online platforms

Delhi High Court orders delisting of cookware named 'Amul' from online platforms

The trademark infringement case is slated for hearing on 24 January 2023

The Delhi High Court has ordered the delisting of the cookware being sold by a businessman under the name 'Amul'. The manufacturers of the popular dairy brand Amul had filed a suit against Maruti Metals, leading to the court directing the utensils company to remove the name from the e-commerce platforms.

The bench comprising Justice Pratibha M Singh directed the cookware and pressure cooker manufacturer, to inform the e-commerce platforms selling its products to remove its listings.

The suit was filed by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited and Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Limited seeking a permanent injunction against Maruti Metals from manufacturing and selling products under their popular trademark 'Amul.' They claimed it was deceptively similar to their registered trademark, which, since 1958, has been in use for milk and other products.

Passing an interim injunction order in favor of the plaintiffs, the court directed that if the product listings were not removed, the plaintiffs had the freedom to write to all online platforms for the removal. It also ordered that all existing packaging under the mark 'Amul' in possession of Maruti Metals, must be destroyed or should not be used.

Justice Singh took note of the fact that 'Amul' was a well-known trademark owing to its large-scale use and immense goodwill. She said that the dairy products and the cookware were allied goods used in the kitchen. Therefore, an identical trademark could not be permitted, as it was likely to cause confusion and deception in the mind of the consumer.

The bench observed, "Owing to the expanse of the plaintiffs' business, as also the instantaneous recognition of the Amul brand, consumers are likely to associate the cookware under an identical brand as originating from the plaintiffs. Since 'Amul' is known across the length and breadth of the country, it deserves to be protected as a well-known mark even in respect of unrelated goods under the Trademark Act, 1999."

The defendant submitted that the cookware manufacturing company was willing to change its brand name from 'Amul' to 'Amulya' as an ad interim arrangement. However, the plaintiffs' argued that even 'Amulya' was a registered trademark used by them for certain products.

However, despite the plaintiff's objection, the court allowed the defendant company to change its brand name from 'Amul to 'Amulya' as an ad interim arrangement. It noted that since 1992, the company was using the impugned mark.

The court held, "The word 'Amulya' used for cookware cannot at this stage be held to be deceptively like 'Amul', especially in the factual background of this case. The said word also has connotations in Hindi and Sanskrit."

While permitting the defendant company to use the mark 'Amulya', it directed that its color combination and the style of writing must be completely different from the plaintiffs' trademark. It provided the defendant a week's time to do so and ensure there was no conflict between the entities.

It added "The present interim arrangement between the parties shall not bind the final decision in this suit post-trial. The opinion expressed in this order is prima facie in nature. The plaintiff's remedies qua the defendant's registration of the mark 'Amulya' are left open."