Madras High Court Grants Injunction Against ‘Freedum’ Oil Mark, Finds Deceptive Similarity With ‘Freedom’ Brand

Madras High Court Grants Injunction Against ‘Freedum’ Oil Mark, Finds Deceptive Similarity With ‘Freedom’ Brand

Introduction

The Madras High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd., restraining a trader from using the mark “Freedum” for edible oils, finding prima facie deceptive similarity with the registered “Freedom” trademark.

Factual Background

Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd., the proprietor of the registered “FREEDOM” trademark and its variants, has been engaged in the manufacture and sale of edible oils and fats since 2009. The company alleged that Nawaz Traders had recently adopted the mark “Freedum” for identical goods and had begun marketing such products in the market. It was further contended that despite receiving notice, the defendant continued to circulate infringing products, thereby causing confusion among consumers and diluting the plaintiff’s goodwill.

Procedural Background

The plaintiff approached the Madras High Court seeking interim relief against the defendant’s use of the impugned mark. Upon issuance of notice, the defendant sought time to file a counter-affidavit. The matter came up before Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, who passed an ad-interim order on March 16, 2026.

Issues

1. Whether the mark “Freedum” is deceptively similar to the registered trademark “Freedom”.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ad-interim injunction pending adjudication.

Contentions of Parties

The plaintiff contended that it is the registered proprietor of the “FREEDOM” mark and has built substantial goodwill through continuous use. It argued that the defendant’s adoption of “Freedum” for identical goods was dishonest and likely to cause confusion in the market. The defendant, on the other hand, sought time to respond to the allegations and file a detailed counter-affidavit.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that the rival marks were prima facie deceptively similar and were being used in relation to identical products, namely edible oils. It noted that the plaintiff had established prior use and registration of the mark, whereas the defendant had only recently applied for registration. The Court further took into account the plaintiff’s submission that the defendant had continued to flood the market with infringing goods even after receiving notice, thereby aggravating the likelihood of confusion and harm. In such circumstances, the Court held that a prima facie case was made out warranting immediate protection.

Decision

The Madras High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark “Freedum” or any deceptively similar mark until the next date of hearing. The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 8, 2026.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Advocate Arun C Mohan. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Advocate Jesus Moris Ravi.