Back
Restrains Chhabee Nutricos from Using Bottle to 's Pulpy Orange
The has once again stepped in to protect ’s distinctive , this time restraining from marketing its “Gulpy Orange” drink in a bottle shape that Justice Vikas Mahajan found to the iconic “Minute Maid Pulpy Orange” container. The , passed on , underscores the court’s vigilance against attempts to circumvent prior injunctions by making only cosmetic alterations to a product’s appearance.
Background of the Dispute
The litigation began earlier when accused Chhabee Nutricos of copying the overall get-up of its “Pulpy Orange” beverage, including the distinctive bottle design. On , the court granted a barring the defendant from selling, advertising, or manufacturing goods bearing the “Gulpy Orange” mark, label, or bottle—as well as any mark or packaging substantially similar to ’s registered trademarks. The order specifically covered the shape of the bottle, which the court recognised as a distinctive device.
Following that , filed an application alleging non-compliance, pointing out that the old product was still being advertised on Instagram and other third-party websites. Chhabee Nutricos promptly removed those listings, and the application was disposed of on , without being pressed.
The New Bottle and Alleged Circumvention
The present arose after noticed that Chhabee Nutricos had introduced a new bottle shape for “Gulpy Orange.” According to , the defendant had only slightly modified the contours of the bottle to create a superficial distinction while preserving the same overall visual impression that had already been deemed infringing. argued that the new bottle’s silhouette, proportions, and key design elements remained to the registered “Minute Maid Pulpy Orange” .
To bolster its claim, presented a side‑by‑side photographic comparison of the two bottles before Justice Mahajan. After examining the images, the court recorded that the new bottle was indeed “” to ’s shape. The judge observed that a consumer of ordinary intelligence and would likely be confused into believing that “Gulpy Orange” originated from or was associated with Company.
Court’s Order and Reasoning
Without delving into the full merits at this interlocutory stage, the court accepted that there existed a strong case in favour of the plaintiff. The clearly tilted toward protecting ’s established intellectual property rights, especially given the earlier and the defendant’s apparent attempt to design around it.
Justice Mahajan restrained Chhabee Nutricos from using the impugned new bottle shape until the next hearing. The court noted that the defendant had been given ample opportunity to comply and granted one final chance to file a reply within three weeks. may file a rejoinder thereafter, and the matter is listed for further consideration on .
Legal Principles in Play
This case engages the well‑settled law on infringement. Under , a proprietor of a registered mark can seek an against any person who uses a mark or sign that is identical or to the registered mark in relation to goods or services. , which includes the shape and configuration of a product’s packaging, can be protected as a trademark if it has acquired and indicates the source of the goods.
The court’s analysis follows the classic test laid down in and : whether an average consumer with is likely to be confused or deceived. Here, the side‑by‑side comparison left little doubt that the defendant’s new bottle was designed to evoke the look of “Minute Maid Pulpy Orange,” thereby free‑riding on ’s .
Impact on Brand Protection and Consumer Rights
The decision sends a clear message to competitors that mere tweaks to a product’s packaging will not suffice to escape liability once a court has found infringement. It reinforces the principle that the overall visual impression—rather than minute differences—is the touchstone for deceptive similarity. For brand owners, the ruling affirms the value of registering distinctive and the courts’ willingness to grant interim relief swiftly.
From a consumer perspective, the order safeguards against marketplace confusion. The “Minute Maid Pulpy Orange” bottle has become synonymous with a specific quality and taste expectation. Allowing a look‑alike to remain on shelves could erode that trust and dilute the brand’s . The High Court’s intervention therefore serves both the commercial interests of the plaintiff and the public interest in honest trade practices.
Looking Ahead
Chhabee Nutricos now has three weeks to file a detailed response. At the next hearing, the court will evaluate whether the new bottle shape warrants a permanent or if the defendant can demonstrate any valid defence, such as of ’s or . Given the strong finding, however, the burden will be heavy on the defendant to show that its design does not infringe.
This case also highlights the growing importance of in the Indian beverage market. As competition intensifies, companies are increasingly relying on unique packaging to stand out, and the courts are becoming more proactive in defending those investments against slavish imitation. Legal professionals advising clients in the food and beverage sector would do well to advise that even subtle changes to a product’s shape after an are unlikely to pass muster if the overall impression remains .
Conclusion
The ’s order against is a firm reminder that injunctive relief does not end with a single compliance step; it extends to any subsequent attempt to reintroduce a . By restraining the new “Gulpy Orange” bottle, Justice Vikas Mahajan has upheld the integrity of previous judicial orders and reinforced the legal framework protecting registered . The final outcome awaits further arguments in January 2027, but for now, has secured another victory in its ongoing battle to defend the distinctive shape of “Minute Maid Pulpy Orange.”
