Marina Food Products Private Limited v. Britannia Industries Limited

FAO 25/2018 & CAV 41-42/2018, CM APPL. 2153/2018, CM APPL. 2154/2018

The Delhi High Court upheld an ex-parte injunction granted by the Trial Court against Marina Food Products Private Limited for using the trademark 'MARIE' in relation to biscuits. The court found that the initial order met the legal requirements under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC, as sufficient reasons were recorded regarding potential public confusion and harm. Furthermore, the appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts was dismissed, confirming the trial court's authority to proceed with the trademark infringement suit.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
FAO 25/2018 & CAV 41-42/2018, CM APPL. 2153/2018, CM APPL. 2154/2018
Judge(s)
Najmi Waziri

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Marina Food Products Private Limited vs Britannia Industries Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS(COMM) 428/2017

Vinay AggarwalvsRims Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction, ruling in favor of the plaintiff regarding passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'ELEPHANT JINLI' was phonetically and structurally similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'ELEPHANT,' creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Despite arguments regarding conflicting agreements from the manufacturer, the court upheld the plaintiff's prior rights and dismissed the defendant's application to vacate the injunction.

trademarkCS(COMM) 572/2022

New Balance Athletics Inc.vsNineplus Shoes Private Limited

In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues arising from a Local Commissioner's report detailing alleged removal of infringing goods. The Court clarified that while the Defendant was found to be using the impugned mark contrary to assurances, it dismissed adverse observations against the defendant's counsel for merely informing industry associations about the lawsuit. Crucially, the Court mandated fresh service and personal appearance by the key representative of the Defendant, ensuring due process before proceeding with coercive measures.

trademark(T)CMA(TM)/149/2023

Laticrete International, Inc.vsThe Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court allowed Laticrete International's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark application. The court found the original refusal order was unreasoned, essentially a 'copy and paste job,' and failed to consider the appellant's arguments regarding the cited marks. Crucially, the court noted that two of the five cited conflicting marks had been abandoned, while the remaining three were still in an 'opposed' status, making the application eligible for advertisement.

trademark2026:CHC-OS:117-DB

Unique Enterprenuers And Finance LimitedvsReally Agritech Private Limited

The appeal challenged a judgment that revoked an interim injunction and dismissed the plaintiff's urgent relief application. The core dispute involved alleged infringement and passing off between the appellant (using 'RALLI') and the respondent (using 'Really'). The court found that the appellant was aware of the defendant's use of the mark since 2018, based on participation in a fair and subsequent WhatsApp exchanges.

trademarkCS (Com.) No. 796/2021

Vrajotsav GoswamivsDevendra Verma And Anr.

The plaintiff, Vrajotsav Goswami, sought permanent injunction against defendants for infringement of his 'Vrajrang' style/trademark and passing off. The dispute centered on the use of the name 'Vrajrang (ब्रजररग)' by the defendant No. 1 in publishing a book. Both the main suit and the counter claim filed by the defendant were ultimately dismissed.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call