Delhi High Court Protects Amul’s Trademark: Pharma Firm Barred from Using “AMUL” Brand

Case 10: Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. & Anr. v. Bio Logic and Psychotropics India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1035
Court: Delhi High Court
Date Decided: 10 September 2024
Judge: Justice Mini Pushkarna

Background

Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., widely known as Amul, is a prominent dairy cooperative in India, recognized for its extensive range of dairy products. Amul holds registered trademarks for the brand name “AMUL,” which has become synonymous with quality dairy products across the country.

Bio Logic and Psychotropics India Pvt. Ltd., a pharmaceutical company, began marketing an antipsychotic medication under the brand name “AMUL.” These products were sold through various e-commerce platforms. Upon discovering this usage, Amul issued a cease and desist notice to the defendants. In response, the defendants claimed to have invented the trademark in 2013 and filed a trademark application for “AMUL” eight days after receiving the legal notice.

Amul filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the “AMUL” mark or any other mark deceptively similar to it, alleging trademark infringement and passing off.

Legal Issues

1. Whether the defendants’ use of the “AMUL” mark for pharmaceutical products constitutes infringement of Amul’s registered trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2. Whether such use amounts to passing off, leading to confusion among consumers and dilution of Amul’s brand identity.
3. Whether Amul is entitled to a permanent injunction and damages for the unauthorized use of its well-known trademark.

Parties’ Contentions

Plaintiff (Amul):

• Asserted that “AMUL” is a well-known trademark with significant goodwill and reputation in the market.
• Claimed that the defendants’ use of the identical mark for pharmaceutical products is likely to cause confusion among consumers and tarnish the brand’s image.
• Argued that the defendants acted in bad faith by adopting the “AMUL” mark without any plausible justification.

Defendants (Bio Logic and Psychotropics India Pvt. Ltd.):

• Contended that they had invented the “AMUL” trademark in 2013 and had been using it for their pharmaceutical products since then.
• Filed a trademark application for “AMUL” shortly after receiving the legal notice from Amul.
• Did not file a written statement or provide substantial evidence to support their claims.

Decision

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Amul, restraining the defendants from using the “AMUL” mark or any other mark deceptively similar to it for their pharmaceutical products. The court observed that the defendants had no plausible justification for adopting the “AMUL” mark and acted with mala fide intent to ride upon Amul’s immense reputation and goodwill. The court also imposed costs and damages totaling ₹5 lakhs against the defendants for infringing Amul’s well-known trademark. Additionally, the court directed the defendants to destroy the infringing goods that had been confiscated by the Local Commissioner and returned to them, in the presence of Amul’s representatives.

Ratio Decidendi

• The unauthorized use of a well-known trademark, even in a different class of goods, constitutes infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, if it takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the registered trademark.
• Adoption of an identical or deceptively similar mark without a plausible justification indicates mala fide intent and is actionable under trademark law.
• In cases of infringement of well-known trademarks, courts may grant permanent injunctions and award damages to protect the brand’s reputation and prevent consumer confusion.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

• Trade Marks Act, 1999: Sections 29(1), 29(2), 29(4), 29(6), 29(8), 29(9), 134
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2

Bibliography

Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. & Anr. v. Bio Logic and Psychotropics India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1035

• ‘Delhi High Court restrains Bio Logic and Psychotropics India Pvt Ltd from using mark similar to “AMUL”‘ (SCC Online, 21 September 2024) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/09/21/dhc-restrains-bio-logic-and-psychotropics-india-pvt-ltd-from-using-mark-similar-to-amul/
• ‘Delhi High Court Restrains Businesses From Using Amul’s Trademark On Their Pharmaceutical Products, Directs Payment Of ₹5 Lakhs In Damages & Costs’ (LiveLaw, 19 September 2024) https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/amul-trademark-infringement-pharmaceutical-tablets-costs-damages-270042
• ‘Court Stops Trademark Infringement of “AMUL”‘ (BananaIP, 21 September 2024) https://bananaip.com/pharma-companys-buttery-slip-court-stops-trademark-infringement-of-amul/