Mars and Cadbury End 25-Year ‘Celebrations’ Trademark Battle, Distribute Chocolates to Delhi School children

Mars and Cadbury End 25-Year ‘Celebrations’ Trademark Battle, Distribute Chocolates to Delhi School children

Introduction

This matter concerns a long-standing trademark dispute over the mark “CELEBRATIONS” between two global confectionery giants, Mars Incorporated and Cadbury (India) Ltd. The dispute has persisted for nearly 25 years, engaging multiple rounds of pleadings, affidavits, and hearings.

Factual Background

Mars Incorporated and Cadbury (India) Ltd. had been contesting rights over the trademark “CELEBRATIONS”, used for their respective chocolate assortments. What began as a commercial conflict over the use of a mark representing happiness and festivity evolved into a protracted legal battle spanning almost a quarter of a century. Both parties, while competing in the confectionery market, eventually recognized the opportunity to resolve the dispute amicably and align their settlement with public interest initiatives.

Procedural Background

The dispute had been pending before this Court for decades. After extensive negotiations, both plaintiff and defendant approached the Court seeking to record a settlement by mutual consent. The settlement involved not only resolution of the trademark dispute but also a commitment to public-spirited initiatives benefiting schoolchildren in Delhi. The Court considered the settlement in its entirety before formally recording it.

Issues

1. Whether the trademark dispute over “CELEBRATIONS” could be resolved amicably by mutual consent.

2. How the settlement could reflect corporate social responsibility and serve public interest

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff Incorporated voluntarily agreed to a settlement with Cadbury and proposed the distribution of chocolate assortments worth ₹5 lakh to government schoolchildren in Delhi, emphasizing goodwill and community engagement over continued litigation.

Cadbury (India) Ltd. similarly supported the settlement and the charitable distribution, ensuring that the distribution would be equitable and that nutritionally balanced alternatives would be provided in schools that restrict high-sugar or high-fat foods. Both parties sought closure of the dispute while promoting a socially responsible outcome.

Reasoning and Analysis

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the voluntary agreement to resolve the dispute by mutual consent reflected a mature and collaborative approach to conflict resolution. The Court noted that even fiercely competitive industries could prioritize social responsibility over commercial rivalry. The settlement included the distribution of chocolate assortments valued at ₹5 lakh each to Delhi government schoolchildren under the supervision of the Directorate of Education and the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, ensuring fairness in implementation. The provision of nutritionally balanced alternatives in schools with dietary restrictions demonstrated a thoughtful balance between charitable intent and public health concerns.

The Court commended the parties for demonstrating that true celebration lies in generosity rather than triumph over competitors. The settlement was viewed as a model for resolving protracted disputes without unnecessary consumption of judicial time and as an example of corporate responsibility intersecting with public interest. The Court formally recorded the settlement and brought the litigation to a close with satisfaction.

Implications

This case highlights the importance of amicable resolution in long-standing trademark disputes and underscores the potential for corporate social responsibility to enhance the public impact of legal settlements. The judgment demonstrates that courts can encourage socially responsible outcomes while facilitating legal closure, setting a precedent for integrating charitable initiatives in settlement agreements.

Order

The Court recorded that the suit stands resolved by mutual consent. Moreover, both parties are directed to distribute assortments of chocolates and confectioneries worth ₹5 lakh each to government schoolchildren in Delhi under the supervision of the Directorate of Education and DSLSA. The parties are to coordinate logistics to ensure equitable allocation, and in schools that restrict high-sugar or high-fat foods, nutritionally balanced alternatives are to be provided.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali R. Mittal, Mr. Siddhant Chamola and Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Ms. Nancy Roy, Advocate.