- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Sends Too Yumm’s Infringement Case Against Haldirams To Mediation

Delhi High Court Sends Too Yumm’s Infringement Case Against Haldirams To Mediation
The Delhi High Court has referred to mediation a lawsuit filed by Guiltfree Industries, the manufacturer of Too Yumm, accusing Haldirams of copying the distinctive packaging of its "Bhoot Chips" product. The suit alleges that Haldirams' 'Takatak Bhoot Chilli' packaging is a "slavish imitation" of Too Yumm’s artistic trade dress.
On February 4, Justice Mini Pushkarna ordered Haldirams to halt the manufacturing and distribution of products with the disputed packaging. However, the court allowed existing stock already in the market to be sold. Additionally, Haldirams was permitted to continue using its own trademarks and branding elements, provided the packaging design is sufficiently distinct from Too Yumm’s.
Too Yumm discovered the alleged infringement in January 2025 and quickly filed the lawsuit to protect its intellectual property rights. The company contended that the unique packaging had become synonymous with the Too Yumm brand and that Haldirams' recent use of similar packaging could lead to consumer confusion and a flood of imitative products.
The court upheld its previous order and referred the dispute to mediation, setting a deadline of February 4 for Haldirams to stop using the contested packaging. The next mediation session is scheduled for February 19.