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
The North Face Apparel CorpvsController of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Apex Laboratories Pvt LtdvsElder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Radico Khaitan LimitedvsPicadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.)vsMaharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance LimitedvsSahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
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.