Short Summary
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd's appeal against the dismissal of its suit for trademark infringement and passing off by Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd was dismissed by the Madras High Court. The court held that the trademarks 'Arogya' and 'Patanjali Aarogya' are not similar and that the respondents are protected under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act. The court also found that the goods marketed by the appellant and the respondents are different and that the respondents' trademark is prefixed with the word 'Patanjali'.
Detailed Summary
[Cites
11
, Cited by
0
]
Madras High Court
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd vs Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd on 21 April, 2026
Author:
P.Velmurugan
Bench:
P.Velmurugan
OSA No.263 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 07-04-2026
DATE OF DECISION : 21-04-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN
THILAKAVADI
OSA No.263 of 2020
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd.,
Having registered office at
No.1/20-A, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR)
Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097
And also carrying on its business at
Old No.AD-83/New No.AD13
Anna Nagar, Opp. IOB Towers Branch
Chennai-600 040
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Appellant
Vs
1. M/s.Patanjali Biscuits Pvt. Ltd.,
Continental Chambers, 5th Floor
15A, Hemantha Basu Sarani
Kolkatta-700 001
2. M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.,
Plot No.209, Bhalawa Village
Opposite Jaiangir Puri
G.T.Karnal Road, Delhi-33
Respondents
Memorandum of Grounds of Original Side Appeal filed under Order
XXXVI, Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No.263 of 2020
set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Hon’ble
Court in Application No.2920 of 2019 in C.S.No.33 of 2019.
For Appellant: Mr.N.Surya Senthil and
Mr.Shubham M.George
for M/s.Surana and Surana
For Respondents: Mr.P.Giridharan for R1 & R2
JUDGMENT
P.Velmurugan J.
This original side appeal has been directed against the judgment and
decree passed by the learned single Judge in Application No.2920 of 2019 in
C.S.No.33 of 2019 dated 07.02.2020, in and by which the suit filed by the
plaintiff for infringement and passing off of its registered trade mark “Arogya”
by the defendants and causing damage to the goodwill and reputation earned by
the plaintiff, has been dismissed summarily with costs.
2. The appellant herein, being the plaintiff, filed the suit for infringement
and passing off of its registered trade mark “AROKYA” by the defendants and
causing damage to the goodwill and reputation earned by the plaintiff stating
that the plaintiff is India’s one of the largest Private sector in the dairy products
and it has established dairies at various places in South India with state of art
facilities meeting the high norms of hygiene and health. Besides milk, the
plaintiff is also engaged in manufacturing other dairy products like ice creams,
dairy whitener, skimmed milk powder AGMARK certified ghee, butter, cooking
2
https://www.m
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Hatsun Agro Product Ltd vs Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Shri Mohan VidhanivsRegistrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi
Mohan Vidhani filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission seeking details regarding the status of a registered Trademark (TM No. 455982) during its restoration/renewal process. The CPIO denied the request, stating the queries were beyond the scope of the RTI Act as they asked how decisions were reached. The CIC upheld this decision.
M/s. Indo Mim Pvt. Ltd.vsMr. Pabitra Kumar Swain
The plaintiff, a company specializing in MIM products, filed a suit against its former employee (Defendant No. 1) and his new employer (Defendant No. 2), alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement by soliciting employees and customers after resignation. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the allegations regarding solicitation and loss, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr.vsTorrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Micro Labs Limited, Zydus Healthcare Ltd., ERIS Lifesciences Ltd., USV Pvt. Ltd., MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought permanent and temporary injunctions against various defendants for infringing their patents related to Dapagliflozin. The court found that the defendants had laid a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent, leading the court to decline the grant of interim injunction.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp.vsBeaukev Pharma International Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 209816) concerning Sitagliptin. The court closed the defendant's right to file a written statement and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling the patented drug until the final disposal of the suit.
Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.vsThe Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
In this matter concerning a petition before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed several procedural applications. While certain motions were disposed of, the bench issued a critical direction requiring the petitioner to implead the actual registered proprietors of the trademark in question. This step is necessary because a favorable ruling could lead to the cancellation of their registered mark, ensuring all stakeholders are heard before proceeding with the core dispute.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.