Britannia Industries Limited vs Rajat Chawla - Injunction Application

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 8, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Britannia Industries Limited vs Rajat Chawla Sole Proprietor Of Madhve ... on 24 March, 2026

Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 480/2024 & I.A. 31014/2024

                                                                Reserved on: 17th November, 2025
                                                               Date of Decision: 24th March, 2026
                                                        Date of uploading: As per digital signature

                           BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED                                  .....Plaintiff
                                               Through:     Mr. Sachin Gupta, Ms. Mahima, Ms.
                                                            Prashansa Singh, Ms. Diksha Tekriwal
                                                            and Mr, Rohit Pradhan, Advocates
                                               versus

                           RAJAT CHAWLA SOLE PROPRIETOR OF MADHVE GLOBAL
                           ENTERPRISES                               .....Defendant
                                       Through: Mr. Divyanshu Choudhary and Mr.
                                                Kartik Kumar Aggarwal, Advocates.

                     %
                     CORAM:
                     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
                                               JUDGMENT MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

I.A. 31014/2024 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC)

1. The present application has been filed under Section 94 read with Order
   XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
   [' CPC '], seeking a temporary injunction against the Defendant.

2. The underlying suit has been filed by the Plaintiff inter alia seeking the
   relief of permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs to restrain the Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 1 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 Defendant from using the mark ['impugned
   mark'].

CASE SET UP IN THE PLAINT

1. The Plaintiff is a leading food products company in India. The Plaintiff's product portfolio primarily comprises bakery products, such as biscuits, bread, and cake, and dairy products, such as cheese and milk. 3.1. The Plaintiff adopted the mark 'BRITANNIA' as a trademark and tradename at least since 1918. The wordmark 'BRITANNIA' has been declared as a well-known mark by the registry on 08.01.2024. Additionally, the Plaintiff also has copyright registrations, which have been set out at paragraph '42' of the plaint.

3.2. In particular, in 2018, the Plaintiff adopted the trademark

bearing TM no. 3827311 in class 29 and TM no.
3827312 in class 30, both dated 08.05.20181. It is stated that the said mark is
advertised by the Plaintiff in the marketing and sale of all of its products,
including but not limited to 50-50, Good Day, Marie Gold, Britannia
Bourbon, and Pure Magic, which are household names in India.
3.3. On 08.08.2023, the Plaintiff applied for and was granted registration of

                     a blank device mark                                           bearing TM No. 6056657 in class 30. 1 Details of Plaintiff's various BRITANNIA registrations have been set out at paragraph '13' of the plaint.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 2 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 3.4. The Plaintiff's revenue for the financial year 2022 to 2023 was
approximately Rs. 16,000 crores. The advertising and marketing expenses
incurred by the Plaintiff for the promotion of products from 2012 to 2023 have
exceeded Rs. 12,000 crores.

3.5. The Plaintiff actively promotes its business through its official website
https://www.britannia.co.in/ as well as through various social media platforms
such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.
3.6. Owing to the Plaintiff's goodwill and wide reputation not only in India
but globally2, it has won various accolades and awards, which have been set
out in paragraph '9' of the plaint.

3.7. In March 2024, the Plaintiff learnt that the Defendant was using the
impugned mark and had applied for registration thereof in Class 30, claiming
use since 10.10.2022.

3.8. Thereafter, the Plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice dated
13.03.2024 to the Defendant; however, the Defendant vide its response dated
15.04.2024 refused to comply with the notice whilst stating that the rival
marks are dissimilar. Thus, aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff has instituted
the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES
Submissions by the Plaintiff

1. Mr. Sachin Gupta, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, states that the Plaintiff's trademarks consist of a highly distinctive and unique device with a five-sided pentagon-like stylised/curvaceous structure with arches at the bottom joining from both corners in the middle of the structure ['geometric 2 Details of the Plaintiff's international trademark registrations have been set out at paragraph '26' of the plaint.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 3 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 pentagonal structure']. He states that a bare perusal of the Plaintiff's mark and
the impugned mark demonstrates that the essential features and distinctive
elements of the Plaintiff's mark have been slavishly copied by the Defendant,
making it deceptively similar. In this regard, reliance is being placed upon the
judgments of the Coordinate benches of this Court in Adidas AG and
Another. v. Praveen Kumar and Others3 and Nilkamal Crates and
Containers and Another v. Reena Rajpal and Another4.
4.1. He states that, given the near identity between the two [2] marks, the
Defendant has dishonestly adopted the impugned mark in an attempt to imply
a false connection inter se parties. An ordinary and unwary consumers may
likely assume that the products bearing the mark 'RENEWTRIA' are a line
of products from the Plaintiff.

4.2. He further states that most of the Defendant's products use the
impugned mark with a colour combination of black and gold/orange, which

                     is deceptively similar to one of the Plaintiff's mark
                     bearing TM no. 3854696 in class 29 and TM no. 3854699 in class 30, used
                     for its Pure Magic products since 2018.

4.3. He further states that the Plaintiff has black and white device
registration, which confers upon the proprietor the right to use the mark in any
colour combination.

4.4. He states that the Defendant has filed an application bearing no.
6074035 for the impugned mark in a colour combination of black and white;

3 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8693 [Paragraph No. 16] 4 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7129 [Paragraph No. 24 to 29] Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 4 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 therefore, the Defendant's use of the impugned mark amounts to infringement
of the Plaintiff's mark.

Submissions by the Defendant

1. Mr. Divyanshu Choudhary, learned counsel for the Defendant, states
                    that the Defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling
                    flavoured candies, confectionery, cake decoration confectioneries, preserved
                    dried fruits, and condiments, which are different and distinct from the
                    Plaintiff's bakery and dairy goods. He states that the label, packaging, trade
                    name, actual products, trade channels and class of consumers are entirely
                    different and distinct. He further states that it is the admitted case of the
                    Defendant that it has neither manufactured nor sold any form of bakery
                    products/biscuits, nor does it intend to in the near future.
   

2. He states that the Defendant has also applied for the registration of its
                    wordmark 'RENEWTRIA' vide TM nos. 6503619 and 6503623.
                    6.1.   He states that while comparing the marks, the comparison has to be of
                    the marks taken as a whole, and that the Court cannot vivisect the marks or
                    compare parts thereof. Nor can the Court compare the whole of the one mark
                    with the part of another. The likelihood of confusion has to be assessed by
                    comparing the marks as a whole.
   

6.2. He states that the geometric pentagonal structure in itself is not the
essential feature of the Plaintiff's marks. The mere geometric pentagonal
structure, devoid of any colour combination and the trade name
'BRITANNIA', cannot be distinctive of the trademarks of the Plaintiff. There
is no acquired distinctiveness in the mere shape of the geometrical structure,
which would imply an unmistakable correlation between the goods and the
Plaintiff. He states that distinctiveness as per Section 9 of the Trade Marks Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 5 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 Act 1999 ['Act of 1999'] implies an unmistakable correlation by the public
with the owner, and the same has to be obtained on or before the date of
registration. He states that the Plaintiff cannot claim any distinctiveness
without any actual use of the pentagonal geometric structure as a standalone
mark for its products. He states that the Plaintiff has never applied the
pentagonal geometric structure in isolation on its products and thus cannot
claim any proprietary rights.

6.3. He further states that the device trademark of the Defendant is used in
the colour combination of black and orange.

ANALYSIS AND COURT'S FINDINGS

1. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

I. Vagueness in the plaint with respect to the plaintiff's mark, which is being
infringed

1. The Plaintiff has set out a visual comparison of the Plaintiff's mark [which has been registered since 2018 and has been in use since then 5], with the impugned mark in paragraph '31' of the plaint, in black and white combination, which appears as under:

"TRADE MARK INFRINGEMENT

1. For visual comparison the Plaintiff's Mark and the Impugned Mark is set out below: Plaintiff's Mark Impugned Mark

                                  Use of the Plaintiff's Device -
                                                                               Use of a structure identical to the
                                  the five-sided pentagon-like
                                                                               Plaintiff's Device a five-sided
                                  stylized/ curvaceous structure
                                                                               pentagon-like 5

Paragraph 2 of the written submissions dated 04.11.2025 of the Plaintiff Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 6 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 with similar arches at the stylized/curvaceous structure
bottom joining in from both with similar arches at the bottom
corners in the middle of the joining in from both corners in
structure with the placement of the middle of the structure with
the trade name within the the placement of the trade name
pentagon-like structure. within the structure.

"
9. The Defendant has disputed the aforesaid representation of the marks
set out at paragraphs '31' to '35' in the plaint and has set out the comparison
in its written statement at paragraph '16', depicting the marks in colour as
used by the parties on their products, which appears as under:

"16. At the very outset, the Defendant submits that the instant case is not
tenable either on facts or on law and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The
Defendant solemnly submits that, in the main suit considering the merits there
is no cause of action for infringement of trade marks, copyright, passing off
etc. in the Plaintiff's Device. The prima facie perusal of the impugned mark of
the instant Defendant would depict that there are drastic differences when
juxtaposed with the Plaintiff's Device and the same does not have an iota of
similarity either visually or phonetically. The prima facie perusal of both the
labels would depict that there are drastic differences amongst the two and the
same in no manner can tantamount to any adaptation/reproduction amounting
to infringement under the purview of the Act of 1999 as alleged, let alone the
slavish imitation of the same. It is pertinent to submit that there is no identity
even in any of the single feature of both the marks. Even, the instant Plaintiff
has miserably failed to point out the alleged identity/similarity in both the
impugned labels and has brought the instant suit on the count of substantial
similarity and copying of the essential features, which is prima-facie not the
case at hand and the instant suit may be dismissed on merits. The label trade
marks used by both the adversaries herein are depicted infra:

Plaintiff's Label Trade Mark in Defendant's Label Trade Mark
use in use Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 7 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 "
6 10. The Plaintiff in its replication at paragraph 15 has not denied the colour
combination depicted in the written statement; it has however, contended that
the colour combination has no relevance and has reiterated its reliance on the
black and white comparison.

1. The Plaintiff, in paragraph '13' of the plaint, has relied upon nineteen [19] registrations as set out in Table 27.

However, the Plaintiff has compared the impugned mark with only one
[1] specific mark in paragraph '31', and it is not specified as to which
registered mark, out of the nineteen [19] registrations, is relied upon by the
Plaintiff, and is alleged to have been infringed. Identification of the registered
mark which is alleged to have been infringed is a material fact, as
contemplated under Order VI Rule 2 of CPC, and the Plaintiff ought to
specifically identify the same so as to make the scope of controversy in the
plaint clear.

This is imperative so as to enable the Defendant to understand the
allegations in the plaint and respond to the same accurately as contemplated
in Order VIII Rule 5 of CPC.

1. It is the duty of a Plaintiff that while drafting a plaint, it is drafted in a manner which is clear, precise and helps both the Court and the Defendant in understanding the grievance accurately sought to be redressed. The Court cannot undertake the exercise of locating which registered mark of the Plaintiff is the one that is being allegedly infringed upon, particularly when the Plaintiff has furnished a list of nineteen [19] registrations without clearly 6 Internal pages 15 and 16 of the replication.

7 Internal pages 16 and 17 of the plaint.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 8 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 specifying the mark that forms the subject matter of the present proceedings.
A claim for infringement under Section 29 of the Act of 1999 is made by a
registered proprietor with respect to a specific registered trademark.
Therefore, there can be no impediment to the Plaintiff to identify the specific
registered mark which is alleged to have been infringed by the impugned
mark.

However, the Plaintiff in the facts of this case has failed to identify the
TM registration which is alleged to have been infringed either at paragraph
'31' of the plaint or in the prayer clause.

1.   Even in its written submissions, the Plaintiff has referred to five [5]
                    device trademarks for alleging infringement, which includes its trademark
   
                                     , whereas admittedly this trademark is not even referred/set out
                    at paragraph '31' of the plaint in the comparison table, and ex facie there is
                    no infringement of this mark. However, the Plaintiff, by making a blanket
                    reference to all available registrations, is clearly seeking to create chaos in the
                    plaint.
   

2.   In the considered opinion of this Court, the non-identification of the
                    specific TM registration at paragraph '31' makes the plaint deliberately
                    vague, which leads to difficulty in the appreciation of the contents of the claim
                    in the plaint and is thus likely to prejudice the Defendant, who is unable to
                    meet the precise case of the Plaintiff. The plaint also creates difficulty for the
                    Court to appreciate the allegations of infringement. The application is liable
                    to be dismissed on this ground alone.
   

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 9 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 15. However, for the sake of bringing some clarity to the discussion and
adjudicating the application on merits, this Court has taken the task upon itself
and presumes that the registered mark on which the Plaintiff relies to claim
infringement is TM Nos. 3827311 and 3827312 for the mark

                                         ['Plaintiff's marks'], as it appears to be closest to the mark
                     depicted in paragraph '31', though admittedly this mark is not used by the
                     Plaintiff in this combination of black and white. In fact, the evidence on record
                     shows that the mark has been/is used in a colour combination of 'red, yellow
                     and green' as well as 'purple and gold', for which the Plaintiff has separate
                     registrations in the said combinations.

II. Deceptive Similarity

1. To determine the Plaintiff's claim of infringement, the main issue
   arising for consideration is whether the impugned mark of the Defendant is
   deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered mark.

2. The Plaintiff contends that the impugned mark

                                                    infringes upon the Plaintiff's mark.
   

3. The Plaintiff contends that the geometric pentagonal structure

                                               is   the    distinctive   feature     of    its    mark
   
                                                , which has been copied by the Defendant, leading to Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing                  CS(COMM) 480/2024                                                       Page 10 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 infringement. It contends that the black and white registration confers upon
                    the Plaintiff the right to use the mark in any colour combination and therefore
                    the Defendant's use of the impugned mark [though in a different colour
                    combination] amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff's registered mark.
   

4. It contends that the Plaintiff's marks are registered in Class 29 and
   Class 30; so also, the Defendant's goods sold under the impugned mark are
   similar to Plaintiff's goods and fall in the same class. The Plaintiff contends
   that it started using its registered device marks in 2018, whereas the Defendant
   commenced the usage of its impugned mark on 10.10.2022.

5. The Plaintiff has made a disclosure that it has subsequently, on
   08.08.2023, filed an application with the Trademark Registry for registration

                    of the blank geometric pentagonal structure device                          vide
                    the TM no. 6056657, in this colour combination of red, green and yellow. As
                    on the date of filing of the suit, the said application had been accepted and
                    advertised.
   

6. The Plaintiff has also placed on record the declaration of its wordmark
   'BRITANNIA' as a well-known trademark. In the aforenoted facts, the
   Plaintiff avers that the impugned mark infringes the Plaintiff's registered
   marks.

7. The Plaintiff contends that it learnt about the Defendant's impugned
   mark while carrying out due diligence in March 2024 in the Trademark
   Registry and thereafter issued a legal notice on 13.04.2024, which was replied
   to on 15.04.2024.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 11 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 23. The Defendant has stated that it is engaged in the manufacturing and
sale of flavoured candies, confectionery, cake decoration confectionery,
preserved and dried fruits, nuts, condiments and herbs. The Defendant,
therefore, contends that its products are completely distinct from the
Plaintiff's bakery and dairy products. It contends that its label packaging,
trade name, actual products, trade channels and class of consumers are
different and distinct.

It contends that it adopted the impugned [device] mark bearing the
word 'RENEWTRIA' in October 2022 and has achieved goodwill through
online sales on e-commerce platforms Amazon, Flipkart, Jiomart, and
Meesho. The Defendant has clarified that it only sells its products on the e-
commerce platforms and through no other means.

1. The Defendant contends that the true and correct comparison of the marks has been set out by the Defendant at paragraph '16' of its written statement and that,

(i) There is no similarity in the label trademarks of the parties when
compared as a whole;

(ii) The goods covered by the rival marks are dissimilar;

(iii) There is no likelihood of deception amongst the customers.

1. The Defendant contends that the mark of the Defendant, when seen as a whole, the font, style, the colour scheme, the pentagonal structure, the curvaceous style with highlighted curves, is different and distinct.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 12 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 26. The Defendant contends that the mere geometric pentagonal structure

                                          of the Plaintiff's mark, devoid of any colour combination
                     and without the word/name 'BRITANNIA', is not by itself a distinctive
                     feature of the Plaintiff's registered mark. It contends that there is no acquired
                     distinctiveness in the mere shape of the geometric pentagonal structure of the
                     Plaintiff's mark, and there is no evidence on record that would show that the
                     consumer associates the geometric pentagonal structure only with the
                     Plaintiff's marks and goods. It contends that a geometric pentagonal structure
                     is also used by other proprietors and illustratively refers to the device mark
                     used by LEVI'S.

1. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff would have to prove during
   the trial that the geometric pentagonal structure, per se, is a distinctive feature
   of the Plaintiff's marks and has become so distinctive that a customer
   associates the geometric pentagonal structure only with the Plaintiff's marks
   and goods.

2. This Court notes, at the outset, that though in the plaint at paragraph
   '37', there is an averment that the Plaintiff's wordmark 'BRITANNIA' and
   the Defendant's mark 'RENEWTRIA' are phonetically similar, however, no
   such plea was pressed during the oral arguments. Even otherwise, this Court
   is of the considered opinion that the Defendant's wordmark 'RENEWTRIA'
   is distinct from the Plaintiff's wordmark 'BRITANNIA'. The font, style and
   the colour scheme in which the word 'RENEWTRIA' is written in the
   impugned mark is distinct from the manner in which the word 'BRITANNIA' Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 13 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 is written in the Plaintiff's registered mark. This Court therefore finds no
   visual and phonetic similarity in the two [2] marks.

3. The next step would therefore be to consider whether the wordmark
   'RENEWTRIA' appearing in the geometric pentagonal structure is visually
   and structurally similar to Plaintiff's wordmark 'BRITANNIA' appearing in
   its geometric pentagonal structure.

4. It is trite law that for testing the visual and structural similarity, rival
   composite marks are to be compared as a whole, rather than dissecting them
   and comparing the individual aspects to determine the likelihood of consumer
   confusion.

This is because the Courts acknowledge that it is the overall impression
of the composite mark that imprints itself on the psyche of a consumer, rather
than the parts of it. It is well established that an average consumer, while
buying products, will not retain the individual elements of a mark. Instead, it
is the overall impression created by the [Plaintiff's] mark upon the ordinary
consumer, based on a cursory observation in the marketplace, that determines
the likelihood of confusion when comparing it with an impugned mark, and
not the impression derived from a meticulous comparison or a carefully
weighed side-by-side analysis, as done legally. Thus, whilst determining
deceptive similarity in trademark cases, the Courts have held that it has to
assess the likelihood of confusion from the perspective of a person of average
intelligence with imperfect recollection. The Courts have also held that while
imperfect recollection is a fact, confusion or deception is not to be assumed
easily, as the average consumer is not overly prone to being misled.

1. This Court therefore has to compare rival marks as a whole, so as to
   assess whether there is a deceptive element in the similar features of the rival Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 14 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 marks, irrespective of the individual dissimilar features. The similarity in the
   rival marks must be significant enough to lead an average consumer to believe
   that the products bearing the infringing mark are from the same manufacturer
   who is the proprietor of the registered mark, or are associated with it.

2. Thus, in the first instance, this Court deems it appropriate to compare
   the rival marks as a whole.

3. It is a matter of record that the Plaintiff is currently using its marks in

                                           and                           in this colour combination
                    on its products. No other colour combination has been brought to record, even
                    with respect to past use.
   

4. The Defendant, on the other hand, is using its mark in a distinct colour

                    composition of black and orange                                 .
   

5. In order to assess whether the rival marks are deceptively similar, this
   Court also deems it appropriate to compare the rival marks as they are actually
   used on the product to consider whether they are deceptively similar. The said
   comparison, as relied upon by the Plaintiff in the written submissions, is as
   follows:

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 15 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 Particulars Plf. Def.
Use The Plaintiff has heavily relied upon the use of its mark as seen on its
Pure Magic range of products to contend that the Defendant's mark is
deceptively similar to this use of the Plaintiff's mark in the colour
combination of purple and gold.

1. Having perused the impugned mark being used on the product by the
   Defendant reproduced hereinabove, this Court is of the prima facie view that
   there is no deceptive similarity in the rival marks, tested from the point of
   view of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. It appears highly
   unlikely that the consumer, upon seeing the Defendant's products bearing the
   mark 'RENEWTRIA', would be reminded of the Plaintiff's trademark so as
   to associate the mark 'RENEWTRIA' with 'BRITANNIA'. The feature of a
   geometric pentagonal structure appearing in the impugned mark fails to
   invoke any connection with the Plaintiff's mark.

2. However, even if this Court were to undertake a side-by-side
   comparison of the rival marks, this Court finds that the wordmark
   'BRITANNIA' and the wordmark 'RENEWTRIA' are the prominent features Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 16 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 of the rival marks, which create an impression in the mind. In the considered
   opinion of this Court, the said prominent features in the rival marks are so
   dissimilar that they would outweigh any similarity arising on account of the
   geometric pentagonal structure, thereby nullifying any chance of confusion.

In this regard, reliance is being placed upon the judgment of a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in BRITANNIA Industries Ltd. v. ITC Ltd. and
Others8. The relevant paragraphs read as follows: -

"15. The definitive test, whether in the case of infringement or passing off, is
that of confusing or deceptive similarity. It is true that, in examining this
aspect, the court is not expected to ferret out points of dissimilarity between
two marks, as absolute identity between marks is rarely, if ever, encountered,
except where one makes unauthorised use of the mark of another. The
examination by the court is, generally, required to be directed towards
assessing whether there is a deceptive extent of similarity between the marks
irrespective of their individual dissimilar features. It is for this reason that
courts have held that the approach should be one of emphasising the
similarities, rather than the dissimilarities, between the marks.

1. Having said that, points of dissimilarity between rival marks cannot be regarded as irrelevant. They cannot be ignored. The perception, whether in the case of infringement or passing off, is to be that of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection - not of an idiot, or an amnesiac. The average human mind has not been particularly conditioned to observe only similarities, and overlook dissimilarities. Section 29(1) uses the word "deceptive", whereas Section 29(2) uses the expression "cause confusion". Deception and confusion are both states of mind, of which no physically tangible evidence can ever be found. If similarities can cause deception or confusion, dissimilarities, if sufficient, can also obviate any such possibility. At the end of the day, the court is required to come to an opinion as to whether a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection is likely be deceived, or to confuse the defendants' marks (in the case of infringement) or the defendants' product (in the case of passing off) with that of the plaintiff. If, therefore, between the rival marks, the points of dissimilarity are so stark that they shade or overweigh the points of similarity, the court may legitimately arrive at a conclusion that, irrespective of the points of similarity, no possibility of confusion or deception exists.

8 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1489 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 17 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51

1. For this, one of the most important assessments that the court is required to make is as to the features, of the rival marks, which are most prominent. If there is stark dissimilarity in the prominent, or essential, features of the rival marks, as would impress on the mind of the person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, no finding of confusing or deceptive similarity can be arrived at."

[Emphasis supplied]

1. In addition, this Court, firstly, finds on the evaluation of the Plaintiff's
   mark that the geometric pentagonal structure is not the dominant/distinctive
   feature of the Plaintiff's mark. The said geometric pentagonal structure
   without the word mark 'BRITANNIA' fails to make any impression on the
   mind. Secondly, it is a matter of record that the Plaintiff does not use the
   geometric pentagonal structure as a standalone feature/mark on its products
   or advertisement campaigns or in any manner without its wordmark. Lastly,
   this Court notes that the Plaintiff has not placed on record any material which
   would lead this Court to form an opinion at this interlocutory stage that the
   geometric pentagonal structure [without the wordmark BRITANNIA] has
   acquired such distinctiveness in the minds of the consumers that they
   associate the said shape [without the wordmark BRITANNIA] only with the
   Plaintiff. There is no documentary evidence on record for the Court to
   conclude that the geometric pentagonal structure in the Plaintiff's mark has
   attained its own distinctiveness as a standalone mark. The Plaintiff has not
   placed on record any evidence to prove any goodwill associated with the
   geometric pentagonal structure, without the wordmark 'BRITANNIA'.

2. This Court, therefore, finds that there is no deceptive similarity in the
   rival marks.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 18 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 III. Goods, Trade channels and absence of confusion

1. Also, this Court finds merit in the Defendant's submission that the
   goods which are being sold by the Defendant are distinct and separate from
   the Plaintiff's goods. To this extent, during arguments, even the Plaintiff has
   not disputed that the goods are separate; however, it has merely contended
   that the goods fall in the same Classes. Though in its plaint, the Plaintiff has
   asserted that the goods are identical, however, this submission was not pressed
   during the arguments. This Court thus finds that there is no similarity in the
   goods sold by the parties.

2. The Defendant has pleaded that it sells its goods only through e-
   marketplaces and not through brick-and-mortar shops. The Plaintiff has not
   disputed the said contention. On the basis of the products of the parties
   reproduced hereinabove, this Court is of the prima facie view that a bare
   comparison of the products, including the marks as a whole, the colour
   combinations, and the packaging style reveals no similarity whatsoever in
   their overall commercial impression, which may mislead the consumers
   surfing on the e-commerce website to mistake the goods of the Defendant for
   the goods of the Plaintiff. This Court is also of the view that the process of
   purchasing goods on e-commerce websites is intentional and mindful, and the
   likelihood of the consumer mistaking the goods of the Defendant as the goods
   of the Plaintiff, despite the distinct wordmark 'RENEWTRIA', seems highly
   unlikely.

3. This Court does not find that any consumer is likely to associate the
   Defendant's goods sold under the brand 'RENEWTRIA' with the Plaintiff's
   mark/brand 'BRITANNIA'. There are more than enough differentiating
   features on the packaging in order to avoid any issue of the Defendant's Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 19 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 products being mistaken for those of the Plaintiff. There is admittedly no
   evidence of any confusion of the consumers with respect to the rival marks.

IV. Infringement

1. Thus, this Court has considered the submissions of the parties in view of Section 29 of the Act of 1999. For infringement to be proved under the said section, the Plaintiff was required to fulfil the following essentials of the said section: -

i. That the impugned mark is similar or identical to the trademark of
the plaintiff
ii. The goods/services rendered by the impugned mark are identical or
similar to the goods/services of the plaintiff.

iii. In view of the similar marks and goods, there is a:

a. Likelihood of confusion
b. Likelihood of association
44. In cases of infringement, it is settled law that the burden lies upon the
Plaintiff to prove that the Defendant is using the impugned mark in such a
manner that is deceiving. However, in view of the foregoing discussion, the
Plaintiff has evidently failed to fulfil conditions (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Section
29 of the Act of 1999. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to persuade the
Court that the geometric pentagonal structure is a distinctive feature of the
Plaintiff's mark. Consequently, the plea of infringement stands rejected.

1. The Plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of Adidas AG v. Praveen Kumar9 and Nilkamal Crates and Containers and Another v. Reena Rajpal and Another10 to substantiate its arguments of infringement.

9 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8603 10 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7129 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 20 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgments are
not applicable to the facts of this case for the following reasons: -

i. Adidas AG v. Praveen Kumar- In this case, the goods in
question were identical, and the sole essential feature of the plaintiff's
mark had been copied by the Defendant in an identical manner. The
essential/dominant feature of the mark had also been determined by
multiple authorities in earlier proceedings and had acquired its own
distinctiveness. Further, the plaintiffs had placed on record documents
showing various promotional activities of the brand bearing the 'Three
Stripes'. The defendants themselves had no objection to the grant of a
permanent injunction in those circumstances.

However, the Plaintiff herein has failed to establish its goodwill and
reputation in the geometric pentagonal structure without the wordmark
'BRITANNIA'.

ii. Nilkamal Crates and Containers and Another v. Reena
Rajpal and Another- In this case, the goods were identical and stark
similarity was found in more than four features of the rival marks
marks. On a comparison of the marks as a whole, the Court held the
marks to be deceptively similar. Additionally, the defendant had given
an undertaking to change its device mark.
46. While this Court takes note that the 'BRITANNIA' is a well-known
trademark, the said well-known status rests with the wordmark
'BRITANNIA', and it has no bearing on the feature of the geometric
pentagonal structure. The said feature on the Plaintiff's own showing was
adopted in 2018, and there is no evidence on record to show that this feature,
in isolation, has acquired distinctiveness in the minds of the consumers.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 21 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 47. Since, the blank geometric pentagonal device is one of the elements of
the trademark registered as TM nos. 3827311 and 3827312 and this Court has
already opined that there is no evidence on record to persuade this Court that
this is dominant/distinctive feature of this trademark and in the absence of any
separate registration of this mark on 10.10.2022 when the impugned mark was
adopted by the Defendant, this Court finds no merit in the submission of the
Plaintiff that there has been any infringement by the Plaintiff's mark TM nos.
3827311 and 3827312.

1. During the pendency of this suit, the Petitioner's application for the
   mark 6056657 pertaining to the blank geometric pentagonal structure, which
   was filed on 08.08.2023, was granted registration on 21.09.2024. In this
   application, the registration was granted in a colour combination of red, green
   and yellow. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff has stated that he is not relying
   upon the said registration for the rights claimed in this application. Also,
   having taken into view that the Plaintiff has a registration for the mark

                                           , we find the said registration to be irrelevant herein,
                    considering that it registered the said mark in the colour combination of red,
                    green and yellow. Notwithstanding the above, the Defendant admittedly
                    adopted the rival mark on 10.10.2022, much prior to the filing of this
                    application. As noted above, the Plaintiff has not proved any goodwill in the
                    blank geometric pentagonal structure. It would be a moot point, to be
                    determined at trial, as to the extent of sales attributable solely to the geometric
                    pentagonal structure as opposed to those arising from the trademarks
                    consisting of the wordmark 'BRITANNIA'.
   

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 22 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 49. Therefore, the Plaintiff has, prima facie, failed to satisfy this Court at
this stage that the geometric pentagonal structure is a dominant element of its
registered TM no. 3827311 and 3827312. This Court has perused the
documents placed on record, and admittedly, this feature of the mark is not
used separately and independently so as to create any association in the minds
of the general public of this feature.

1. The Defendant started using the mark in October, 2022, and the present
   suit was filed on 29.05.2024. There is nothing on record to show that the
   Plaintiff has suffered any damage due to the sales undertaken by the
   Defendant under the impugned mark. The Plaintiff's sales have remained
   unaffected. This Court, therefore, finds that the balance of convenience is in
   favour of the Defendant and no irreparable injury will be caused to the
   Plaintiff.

2. It is clarified that nothing said in this order will affect the rights of the
   parties to be decided post-trial.

3. However, to balance the equities so as to protect the interest of the
   Plaintiff in case it succeeds in its trial and is held entitled to its claim for
   damages, the Defendant is directed to maintain its books of accounts and file
   audited statement of its gross sales turnover for the goods sold under the
   impugned mark with the Registry every six [6] months for the period ending
   March and September of each financial year respectively until the final
   disposal of the suit, with a copy to the Plaintiff.

4. The application is accordingly dismissed.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing CS(COMM) 480/2024 Page 23 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51 CS(COMM) 480/2024

1. List before the Roster Bench for directions on 10.04.2026.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

                     MARCH 24, 2026/msh/aa Signature Not Verified Signed By:MOHIT Signing                  CS(COMM) 480/2024                                                  Page 24 of 24 Date:25.03.2026 18:51