Back
Upholds Injunction Against in Tasty Gold Trademark Dispute
The has affirmed a barring edible oil manufacturer from using the mark “Namaskar Tasty Nutts”, holding that the mark and its packaging are to ’ well-known “Tasty Gold” brand. The decision reinforces the rights of prior trademark users and underscores the vulnerability of semi-literate consumers in the marketplace.
Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, presiding over a , allowed ’ application to vacate the High Court’s earlier interim order that had suspended the injunction. The appellate bench found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s reasoning and dismissed ’ challenge.
The Trademark Dispute
, a partnership firm, has been manufacturing and selling edible oils under the registered trademark “Tasty Gold” since . The company holds both trademark registrations in Class 29 and copyright registrations for the artistic features of its label. In , it discovered that had launched a product bearing the mark “Namaskar Tasty Nutts” with packaging that closely mimicked the “Tasty Gold” label—reproducing the red colour scheme, artistic layout, and the dominant syllable “Tasty”.
Alleging and copyright infringement, moved the trial court for a , which was granted after a detailed assessment of the competing marks.
Trial Court’s Injunction
The trial court found that was the of “Tasty Gold” and that its intellectual property registrations were subsisting. It further noted that the prominent use of “Tasty Nutts”, coupled with visual and phonetic similarities in the , created a clear probability of deception. “Most of the targeted consumers would be illiterates and semiliterates and there is every possibility that they would be easily confused to draw a distinction between the oils of the plaintiff's firm and defendant Nos.1 and 2 company,” the trial court observed, a finding later reproduced and endorsed by the High Court.
The Appeal and Arguments
appealed, arguing that the trial court had failed to consider the marks as a whole. It contended that “Namaskar Tasty Nutts” was sufficiently distinct from “Tasty Gold” and that “Tasty” was a common descriptive word over which no party could claim exclusivity. The appellant also pointed to the existence of another edible oil manufacturer using “Super Tasty” to argue that “Tasty” was widely used in the trade.
High Court’s Analysis
Justice Kumar rejected the challenge to the case. Citing Sections 27(2) and 34 of the , the court observed that a ’s rights are protected against . Section 27(2) preserves the right to bring an action for , while Section 34 recognises the superiority of a ’s rights over a later registration. Since had used “Tasty Gold” since 2000 and its registrations remained in force, the requirement for a was satisfied.
On the third-party use argument, the court noted that had earlier secured an injunction against over the use of “Super Tasty”. The High Court held that the appellants “cannot rely on third-party use to excuse their own .” The bench found no merit in the argument that “Tasty” is merely descriptive, given the overall similarity in and the .
and Irreparable Loss
The court upheld the trial court’s assessment of . had built significant and sales over more than two decades, whereas ’ product was a relatively recent entry into the market. Continued use of the disputed mark, the court held, could cause “” to the plaintiff’s sales and reputation.
Legal Framework and Stay of Suit
also argued that the trial court had stayed the main suit pending trademark rectification proceedings, and therefore could not grant interim relief. The High Court clarified that under , the power to pass —including temporary injunctions—remains intact even during the pendency of rectification proceedings. The stay did not deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction to grant interim protection.
Implications for Trademark Law
This judgment reinforces several key principles in Indian trademark jurisprudence. First, it affirms that prior use, even without registration, creates substantive rights that can be enforced against later entrants. Second, it underscores the importance of and packaging in assessing deceptive similarity, especially where the target consumers include illiterate or semi-literate individuals. Third, it clarifies that the pendency of a rectification proceeding does not bar a court from granting interim injunctive relief.
The decision also serves as a warning to companies that attempt to piggyback on the of an established brand by using a mark that incorporates a dominant syllable or visual cues from a ’s label. The court’s refusal to tolerate “imitation gimmicks” sends a strong deterrent signal.
Conclusion
By vacating its earlier interim order and dismissing ’ appeal, the has restored the trial court’s . The case will now proceed on the merits, but the interim order ensures that ’ market position is protected pending final determination. For legal professionals, the case offers a concise illustration of how courts balance trademark rights, consumer protection, and procedural nuances under the Trade Marks Act.
