Delhi High Court to Decide on 'Fizz' Trademark Dispute Between Parle Agro and PepsiCo

Delhi High Court to Decide on 'Fizz' Trademark Dispute Between Parle Agro and PepsiCo

Introduction

Parle Agro Limited has filed a trademark infringement suit against PepsiCo in the Delhi High Court, seeking to restrain the beverage giant from using the word "Fizz" in relation to its 7up drink. The case, titled Parle Agro v. PepsiCo, came up before Justice Tejas Karia and is next listed for hearing on August 18.

Factual Background

Parle Agro introduced the Appy Fizz brand in 2005 for a sparkling apple juice-based drink, with "Fizz" forming a prominent and essential part of the mark. The company asserts that it holds both statutory registrations and common law rights in the "Fizz" mark and associated trade dress.

In late July 2025, Parle discovered that PepsiCo had begun using "Fizz" prominently as a trademark on its 7up packaging. According to Parle, PepsiCo earlier used the phrase “Extra Fizz” in a descriptive manner along with the larger 7up logo, but has now reduced the size of the 7up branding and elevated “Fizz” to a principal position. Parle contends that this amounts to replication of its trade dress and an attempt to ride on its goodwill and reputation.

Issues

1. Trademark Infringement & Passing Off – Whether PepsiCo’s use of “Fizz” infringes Parle Agro’s registered and common law rights.

2. Validity of Common Law Rights – Whether Parle Agro’s long-standing use of “Fizz” provides protection against competitors.

3. Descriptive Use Defense – Whether “Fizz” is a generic/descriptive term for aerated drinks and cannot be monopolized.

Contentions of the Parties

Parle Agro’s Contention:

• PepsiCo’s use of “Fizz” creates confusion among consumers and affects its market share.
• Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall, appearing for Parle, argued that urgent orders are needed to protect its established goodwill in the “Fizz” brand.
• Parle stressed that “Fizz” is not just descriptive but forms an essential part of its brand identity since 2005.

PepsiCo’s Contention:

• Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, appearing for PepsiCo, contended that they had not yet been served papers for the suit.
• PepsiCo argued that “Fizz” is a descriptive term referring to aerated beverages and cannot be monopolized by any single company.
• It further maintained that its use of “Fizz” is descriptive in nature, not trademark usage.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Tejas Karia will consider:

• Similarity of Marks: Whether PepsiCo’s packaging and use of “Fizz” are deceptively similar to Parle’s mark.
• Goodwill and Reputation: Whether Parle Agro’s reputation in “Appy Fizz” since 2005 strengthens its claim.
• Descriptive Use: Whether PepsiCo’s defense that “Fizz” is a generic term can override Parle’s statutory and common law rights.

The court will also weigh the fact that PepsiCo had previously sued Parle over the tagline “For The Bold” on its B Fizz bottles, a plea which the court had rejected.

Outcome

The matter is next listed for hearing on August 18, 2025. The court’s decision will be significant in determining the scope of protection available to descriptive terms that have acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning in the marketplace.

Representation

• Parle Agro: Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall, briefed by Khaitan & Co (Advocates Ankur Sangal, Ankit Arvind, Shashwat Rakshit, Nidhi).
• PepsiCo: Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, briefed by JSA (Advocates Dheeraj Nair, Angad Bakshi).