Delhi High Court Injuncts ‘Dream Freedom’ Mark Post-Cancellation; Holds Continued Use Prima Facie Infringes ‘FREEDOM’ Edible Oil Brand

Delhi High Court Injuncts ‘Dream Freedom’ Mark Post-Cancellation; Holds Continued Use Prima Facie Infringes ‘FREEDOM’ Edible Oil Brand

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd. from using the mark “DREAM FREEDOM” in relation to edible oils. The suit was instituted by Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. (GEF India), proprietor of the registered trademark “FREEDOM” for edible oils, alleging infringement and passing off. The Court found that the defendant continued to use the impugned mark despite cancellation of its trademark registration, thereby warranting urgent injunctive relief.

Factual Background

GEF India, a public limited company and subsidiary of Golden Agri-Resources (GAR), claims to have conceived and adopted the mark “FREEDOM” for edible oils in 2009. Over the years, the brand has acquired substantial goodwill and market recognition. The plaintiff asserted that its annual sales turnover reached approximately ₹6,761 crores in the financial year 2024–25, and a 2025 A.C. Nielsen market research report ranked the FREEDOM brand as No. 1 in the country.

The plaintiff alleged that Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd. was selling edible oils under the mark “DREAM FREEDOM” using packaging and trade dress nearly identical to that of the plaintiff. It was contended that the defendant’s mark wholly subsumed the registered “FREEDOM” trademark and that the use of a similar green, yellow, white and red colour scheme was a deliberate attempt to create confusion and misrepresent an association with the plaintiff’s products.

GEF India submitted that it issued a cease-and-desist notice in March 2022, which elicited no response. It thereafter initiated cancellation proceedings against the defendant’s registered mark. In December 2024, the Delhi High Court cancelled the defendant’s registration for “DREAM FREEDOM”. Despite this, the defendant allegedly continued to use the impugned mark for identical goods.

Procedural Background

Aggrieved by the continued use of the impugned mark despite cancellation of registration, GEF India instituted the present suit seeking injunction for trademark infringement and passing off. The matter came up before Justice Jyoti Singh for consideration of interim relief.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s continued use of the mark after cancellation of registration was not only infringing but also demonstrated lack of bona fides. It was further submitted that irreparable harm would be caused to the plaintiff’s goodwill if immediate restraint was not granted.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off.

2. Whether the continued use of the mark “DREAM FREEDOM” after cancellation of registration constituted infringement of the registered “FREEDOM” mark.

3. Whether the balance of convenience and irreparable harm warranted grant of interim injunction.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff contended that it is the registered proprietor of the trademark “FREEDOM” in respect of edible oils and has built substantial goodwill and market leadership under the brand. It was argued that the defendant’s mark “DREAM FREEDOM” incorporates the plaintiff’s mark in its entirety and is used for identical goods, thereby causing confusion and deception among consumers.

The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant’s packaging and trade dress closely resemble its own, including the colour scheme and overall presentation, amounting to passing off. It was emphasized that the defendant’s trademark registration had already been cancelled by the Court in December 2024, and continued use thereafter was unlawful and deliberate.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that GEF India had established a strong prima facie case for grant of injunction. The plaintiff’s mark “FREEDOM” was registered and had acquired considerable goodwill, as demonstrated by substantial turnover and market recognition.

The Court noted that the defendant’s registration had already been cancelled, yet the defendant was continuing to use the impugned mark. Such conduct prima facie amounted to infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark and passing off of goods.

The Court held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, particularly in view of the identical nature of goods and the likelihood of consumer confusion. It was further observed that failure to grant interim relief would result in irreparable injury to the plaintiff’s goodwill and brand reputation.

Decision

The Court passed the following interim directions, operative until the next date of hearing:

• The defendant and its affiliates are restrained from using the mark “FREEDOM” or any identical or deceptively similar mark, including “DREAM FREEDOM”, as a trademark, trade name, domain name or on social media in relation to edible oils.
• The defendant is restrained from using the distinctive artistic device associated with the FREEDOM brand, thereby protecting the plaintiff’s registered copyrights.
• The plaintiff is directed to comply with the service requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within two weeks.
• The matter has been listed before the Joint Registrar on 9 March 2026 for admission and denial of documents, and before the Court on 9 April 2026 for further hearing.

In this case GEF India was represented by Ms. Shikha Sachdeva, Ms. Kriti Rathi and Ms. Annie Jacob, Advocates.