Court Blocks Radico Khaitan's 'Kashmyr' Vodka, Upholds Piccadily Agro's Trademark Rights

Court Blocks Radico Khaitan's 'Kashmyr' Vodka, Upholds Piccadily Agro's Trademark Rights

Introduction

The District Court of Karnal has granted an interim injunction in favor of Piccadily Agro Industries, restraining Radico Khaitan from using the brand name "Kashmyr" for its vodka products. The court's decision was based on Piccadily's claim that Radico's brand name was deceptively similar to its registered trademarks "Cashmir" and "Cashmere."

Factual Background

Piccadily Agro Industries is a company that has been expanding its presence in the premium liquor segment. The company first registered the trademark "Cashmere" in 2015 for luxury vodka and later secured the trademark "Cashmir." In May 2025, Piccadily launched its first luxury vodka under the "Cashmir" brand in India and international markets.

Radico Khaitan, one of India's largest makers of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), launched its vodka product under the brand name "Kashmyr" in July 2025. Piccadily Agro claimed that Radico's use of the "Kashmyr" brand name was an attempt to ride on the goodwill of its brand and mislead consumers.

Procedural Background

Piccadily Agro filed a petition before the District Court of Karnal on July 30, 2025, seeking an interim injunction against Radico Khaitan. The company argued that Radico's use of the "Kashmyr" brand name infringed on its registered trademarks "Cashmir" and "Cashmere." Piccadily claimed that the similarity between the two brand names could cause consumer confusion and damage its reputation.

Issues

1. Trademark Infringement: Whether Radico's use of the "Kashmyr" brand name infringes on Piccadily's registered trademarks "Cashmir" and "Cashmere."

2. Consumer Confusion: Whether the similarity between the two brand names is likely to cause confusion among consumers.

3. Goodwill and Reputation: Whether Radico's use of the Kashmyr brand name is likely to damage Piccadily's reputation and goodwill.

Contentions of the Parties

Piccadily Agro's Contention: Piccadily argued that Radico's use of the "Kashmyr" brand name was a blatant attempt to ride on the goodwill of its brand and mislead consumers. The company claimed that the similarity between the two brand names was likely to cause confusion among consumers and damage its reputation.

Radico Khaitan's Contention: Although Radico's contentions are not explicitly mentioned in the order, it can be inferred that the company may have argued that its brand name "Kashmyr" was distinct and not similar to Piccadily's trademarks.

Reasoning & Analysis

The District Court of Karnal observed that the use of "Kashmyr" by Radico Khaitan could cause consumer confusion and amount to trademark violation. The court noted that the marks were similar enough to warrant temporary protection for Piccadily. The court passed an interim order under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, restraining Radico Khaitan from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or promoting vodka under the disputed mark.

Implications

The interim injunction prevents Radico Khaitan and its affiliates from engaging in any commercial activity with the disputed brand name. The final adjudication of the case is still awaited, and Piccadily has sought a permanent injunction against Radico Khaitan, as well as damages for unlawful use of the mark and costs of the proceedings.

Conclusion

The District Court's decision to grant an interim injunction in favor of Piccadily Agro Industries highlights the importance of protecting trademarks and preventing consumer confusion. The case is significant for businesses operating in the liquor industry, where brand reputation and goodwill are crucial.