Delhi High Court Denies Britannia Interim Relief, Says Pentagonal Device Lacks Standalone Distinctiveness
Delhi High Court Denies Britannia Interim Relief, Says Pentagonal Device Lacks Standalone Distinctiveness
Introduction
The Delhi High Court declined to grant an interim injunction in favour of Britannia Industries Limited in its trademark dispute against the use of the mark “RENEWTRIA”. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the plaintiff failed to establish that its pentagonal device, when used without the “BRITANNIA” wordmark, had acquired independent distinctiveness.
Factual Background
Britannia Industries Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered pentagonal device mark adopted in 2018, claiming that the defendant had copied its geometric label structure. The defendant, operating under the name Madhve Global Enterprises, used the mark “RENEWTRIA” within a similar geometric device for confectionery-related products. Britannia contended that such use was a dishonest attempt to ride upon its goodwill and create a false association with its well-known brand.
Procedural Background
The plaintiff sought interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark and label. The matter came before the Delhi High Court for consideration of interim relief pending adjudication of the suit.
Issues
1. Whether the pentagonal device of the plaintiff had acquired independent distinctiveness.
2. Whether the defendant’s mark and label were deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff.
3. Whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for grant of interim injunction under trademark law.
Contentions of the Parties
The plaintiff argued that its pentagonal device was a distinctive element of its branding and that the defendant had slavishly copied the same to mislead consumers and exploit its reputation. It relied on its extensive goodwill and the well-known status of the “BRITANNIA” mark.
The defendant contended that its products and trade channels were distinct and that a mere geometric shape, without the associated wordmark and colour scheme, cannot be monopolised. It further argued that the wordmark “RENEWTRIA” was entirely different from “BRITANNIA” and that the overall commercial impression of the labels was dissimilar.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the pentagonal device, when used independently of the “BRITANNIA” wordmark, had acquired distinctiveness among consumers. It emphasised that trademark protection must be assessed based on the mark as a whole, rather than isolating individual elements.
The Court further noted significant differences between the rival marks, including the wordmarks, colour schemes, and overall presentation, which negated the likelihood of confusion. It observed that consumers are likely to exercise greater care, especially in online purchases, reducing the possibility of deception.
Additionally, the Court found the plaint to be vague, as the plaintiff failed to clearly identify the specific trademark registrations allegedly infringed, thereby prejudicing the defendant’s ability to respond and hindering judicial assessment.
Applying the principles under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, the Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish similarity of marks, similarity of goods, or likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the requirements for grant of interim injunction were not satisfied.
Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the interim injunction application, holding that the balance of convenience favoured the defendant and that no irreparable harm would be caused to the plaintiff.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Advocates Sachin Gupta, Mahima, Prashansa Singh, Diksha Tekriwal, and Rohit Pradhan. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Advocates Divyanshu Choudhary and Kartik Kumar Aggarwal.
