LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

M/s. Nandhini Deluxe v. M/s. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.

Civil Appeal · 2018 INSC 642Decided 26 Jul 2018
Civil Appeal Nos. 2937-2942 of 2018
Justice A.K. Sikri · Justice Ashok Bhushan

Background

The Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation had used the trademark "NANDINI" (with a cow device) for milk and milk products since 1985 and held registration for it under Trade Mark Classes 29 and 30. Nandhini Deluxe, a restaurant business, separately adopted the similar-sounding mark "NANDHINI" for its restaurants from 1989 and applied to register it for various foodstuffs it sold. The Federation opposed this registration as deceptively similar and likely to confuse the public, and after losing before the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, successfully got the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and then the Karnataka High Court to cancel Nandhini Deluxe's registration.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the ingredients required under Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act to block registration on grounds of unfair advantage or detriment to a well-known mark's distinctive character had not been satisfied on the facts. It found Nandhini Deluxe had adopted its mark for restaurant food items as early as 1989, close in time to the Federation's own 1985 adoption, with no evidence the Federation's mark had already acquired distinctiveness by then, making this a case of genuine "concurrent use" by two different businesses rather than deliberate imitation. The Court also noted (though did not need to rely on it) that an earlier, final IPAB order between the same parties on an identical issue had gone in Nandhini Deluxe's favour, which would ordinarily act as an estoppel. It set aside the orders of the IPAB and the High Court, allowed the appeals, and restored the Deputy Registrar's original order granting registration to Nandhini Deluxe, subject to a modification excluding certain milk products the appellant had itself abandoned its claim over. No costs were awarded.

Lesson Learnt

Two businesses in genuinely different trades (e.g., dairy products versus restaurants) can validly hold similar-sounding trademarks if each independently and honestly adopted its mark around the same time, without one deliberately copying an already well-established, distinctive brand: trademark protection is not an automatic monopoly over every use of a similar name across unrelated goods and services.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Intellectual Property Law

Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

Japan Tobacco Inc. & Anr. vs. The Central Warehouse & Anr.

The Court held that the petitioners had not established that they were the "first owner" of the original artistic work, which was a precondition for expunging the impugned registration. Because that point was not established, the Court considered the argument about alleged violation of Section 45(1) of the Act and Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 to be academic and unpersuasive. It also held that the parties' authorities relied on were not relevant to this analysis. The petition was dismissed, with an express clarification that the observations about the earlier suit (CS(COMM) 644/2018) do not decide the merits of that suit.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawSupreme Court of India

I.S.D.S. Private Limited v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd.

This is a referral order, not a final judgment. The Court found a conflict between two of its earlier decisions, Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation and Jaycee Housing v. Registrar, Orissa High Court, on this question. It referred the matter to a larger bench and stayed the underlying commercial suit until the reference is decided.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Division Bench held that publication of a trademark under the Trade Marks Act only happens after an application is formally "accepted," and this application had not yet reached that stage. It agreed with the Single Judge's approach of sending the matter back to the trademark authorities for fresh, correct examination rather than the High Court deciding registrability itself, especially since the Registry was already re-examining the application per the earlier order. Finding no legal error, the appeal was dismissed.

Decided 15 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

ITC Limited vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors. and connected matters

The High Court held that although the Controller's order deciding the two interlocutory petitions was framed somewhat confusingly, there was no real violation of fair procedure: ITC had been given adequate opportunities to respond at every stage, and the Patentee's later written submissions did not introduce anything genuinely new or unfair. The writ petition was dismissed alongside the connected appeal, with the Court finding no legal infirmity in how the patent opposition process was conducted.

Decided 10 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited

The Division Bench found that hoardings for the disputed advertising campaign had been put up in Delhi before the lawsuit was filed, and that Kwick Living itself had a GST-registered principal place of business in Delhi's Naraina Industrial Area and admitted selling its products there. On this basis, the Court held that Delhi's territorial jurisdiction was clearly established under Section 20(a) and 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. It allowed HUL to formally amend its plaint to record these two facts and sent the case back to the Single Judge to decide the interim injunction application on its merits, directing an expedited hearing.

Decided 2 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawSupreme Court of India

Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that once the plaintiff's own affidavit asserted trademark and trade-dress infringement and claimed prior use of the brand, the defendant was entitled to test that claim by asking when the mark had actually been used - regardless of whether the defendant's written statement was formally on record. The Court reversed the High Court's order and directed that the trial proceed with the plaintiff recalled to answer the question, while clarifying it expressed no view on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Decided 7 Aug 2026Read case