Short Summary
The Coca-Cola Company filed an application alleging wilful disobedience by M/S Chhabee Nutricos Industries LLP of an earlier interim order dated 24.01.2025, which had restrained the defendant from using marks and bottle shapes similar to Coca-Cola's 'PULPY ORANGE' mark and distinctive bottle device. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had slightly altered the bottle shape to circumvent the earlier injunction, but the overall appearance remained deceptively similar. The Delhi High Court, finding prima facie that the new bottle was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered bottle device, restrained the defendant from using the impugned new shape bottle and granted three weeks to file a reply.
Detailed Summary
This order was passed by the Delhi High Court in CS(COMM) 32/2025 in an application (I.A. 16237/2026) filed by The Coca-Cola Company under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the CPC, alleging wilful disobedience of an earlier interim order dated 24.01.2025. By the said earlier order, the defendant, its proprietor, partners, employees, servants, agents, and representatives were restrained from selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, and dealing in goods bearing the word mark 'GULPY ORANGE' and/or the 'GULPY ORANGE' label and/or 'GULPY ORANGE' bottle, or any other trademark identical or similar to the plaintiff's 'PULPY ORANGE' mark, 'PULPY ORANGE' labels, and 'MINUTE MAID PULPY ORANGE' bottle. The defendant was also restrained from using a label/trade dress or packaging that was a substantial reproduction of the plaintiff's 'PULPY ORANGE' label, and from using any bottle shape identical or similar to the plaintiff's registered distinctive bottle device.
The plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, submitted that the defendant had previously failed to comply with the directions in the order dated 24.01.2025, leading the plaintiff to file I.A. 10490/2025. However, since the defendant complied in the meantime, that application was not pressed and was disposed of on 18.09.2026. That earlier application was confined to an old product being advertised on Instagram and other third-party websites. In the present application, the plaintiff alleged that to overreach the Court's earlier order, the defendant had slightly changed the shape of its bottle, but the overall appearance remained deceptively similar to the plaintiff's bottle. A tabulated comparison between the plaintiff's bottle device and the defendant's new bottle shape was placed before the Court.
Upon perusal of the comparison, the Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan, was prima facie of the view that the bottle now being used by the defendant was deceptively similar to the shape of the plaintiff's bottle. Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendant, until the next date of hearing, from using the impugned new shape bottle, the pictorial representation of which had been reproduced in the tabulated chart. As a last opportunity, the defendant was directed to file its reply within three weeks, with liberty to file a rejoinder before the next date of hearing. The matter was re-notified for 19.01.2027.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in The Coca-Cola Company vs M/S Chhabee Nutricos Industries LLP 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.