Delhi High Court Restrains Businesses From Using Amul's Trademark On Their Pharmaceutical Products, Directs Payment Of ₹5 Lakhs In Damages & Costs

A single judge bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that an ordinary customer is likely to be confused that the defendants have some association with Amul, thus giving them an unfair advantage and damaging the reputation of Amul's trademark.

“An ordinary consumer, having average intelligence and without minute examination on the background of the defendants, is likely to be confused that the defendants have some association or connection with the plaintiffs. Thus, use of the mark 'AMUL' by the defendants gives an unfair advantage to the defendants and is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark.”

Background

The brief facts of the case are that Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd, popularly known as Amul (plaintiff no. 1) had permitted plaintiff no. 2 to market its products with the trademark 'AMUL' throughout the country.

The plaintiffs claimed that Bio Logic And Psychotropics India Private Ltd (defendant no. 1) engaged in the business of pharmaceutical tablets and that it used an antipsychotic medication under the mark 'AMUL'. These tablets were sold on various e-commerce platforms.

When the plaintiffs served a legal notice to the defendants, asking them to 'cease and desist' from using the trademark, the defendants replied that they invented the trademark in 2013. The defendant no. 2 also filed a trademark application 8 days after receiving the legal notice, claiming to have been using the trademark 'AMUL' for its pharmaceutical products since 2013.

The plaintiffs thus sought a permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant for infringing the trademark and making profits from it.

The High Court took note of its order dated 09 December 2022, where it had restrained the defendants from using Amul's trademark and had also appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of Bio-Logic. The Local Commissioner's report recorded that there were purchase order and invoices of infringing products from 2016-21 in Bio Logic's premises and that it was even manufacturing the infringing products before 2016.

The defendant's counsel stated that they have already stopped marketing goods under the infringing mark and that they do not have any pending stock. 

The plaintiffs' counsel urged for costs and damages to be paid by the defendants and stated that they have various costs including payment of court and counsels' fees and payment to the Local Commissioner.

The Court stated that defendants have infringed Amul's well-known trademark and that are not entitled to use the trademark 'AMUL' or any other mark which is deceptively similar to Amul.

The Court opined that the defendants acted with a malafide intention by infringing Amul's well-known and reputed trademark. It noted that the defendants cannot plead ignorance of the prior existence of Amul's trademark or its reputation.

It said “The defendants have no plausible justification for adopting the plaintiffs' trademark, other than to ride upon the plaintiffs' immense reputation and goodwill.”

The Court noted that the defendants have not filed a written statement or provided any explanation for using Amul's trademark. It also took note of the cease and desist notice, in which the defendants claimed to have invented the trademark and claimed to be the lawful owner of it.

The Court remarked that the defendant's conduct indicated 'malafide and dishonesty' in adopting the trademark.

It thus held that Amul is entitled to be granted a permanent injunction against the defendants.

The Court restrained the defendants, their partners, proprietors, servants, agents, distributors, marketers and suppliers from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly, dealing in products or providing services that bear the 'AMUL' logo or any other deceptively similar mark.

On the issue of costs, the Court took into account the conduct of the defendants. Noting that the defendants knowingly infringed Amul's trademark, it remarked “The fact that the defendants have been using the mark in question since the year 2013 and continued the use, till the year 2022, is also a material factor. Considering the ensuing facts and circumstances of the present case, and taking into account the goods confiscated by the learned Local Commissioner, this Court holds that the plaintiffs are entitled to Costs and Damages.”

It awarded costs of Rs. 4 lakhs and damages of Rs. 1 lakh to Amul, to be paid by the defendants within six months of the order.

The Court also directed the defendants to destroy the infringing goods that were confiscated by the Local Commissioner and then returned to them, in the presence of Amul's representatives.

Case title: Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. cs. Bio Logic And Psychotropics India Private Ltd & Anr. 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1035