M/S Harjee Foods & Anr v. M/S Barbino Enterprises Pvt Ltd. & Anr

In the crowded world of confectionery, where every shelf is a battlefield for attention, a single letter on a candy wrapper can be the difference between brand loyalty and consumer chaos. The Delhi High Court recently tackled a dispute that every founder and brand builder should study closely, because it exposes a critical truth: registration is not the only shield protecting your brand's identity. When two companies clashed over the marks KIDO and KIDCO, the court delivered a split decision that carries powerful lessons for anyone building a consumer-facing business.

The dispute pitted M/S Harjee Foods and another party (the plaintiffs) against M/S Barbino Enterprises Pvt Ltd. and another party (the defendants) in a contest over confectionery branding. The plaintiffs were associated with the mark KIDO, which was a registered trademark, while the defendants were using the mark KIDCO, which was unregistered. The core of the conflict centered on whether the defendants' use of KIDCO infringed the plaintiffs' registered KIDO mark, and whether it constituted passing off by creating confusion among consumers in the marketplace. The defendants' adoption of a mark so visually and phonetically similar to the plaintiffs' established brand set the stage for a high-stakes intellectual property fight.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' use of KIDCO was clearly designed to ride on the goodwill and reputation built around their registered KIDO mark, and that consumers were likely to be confused into believing the two products came from the same source. They pushed for both infringement of their registered mark and passing off protection. The defendants countered that their mark KIDCO was sufficiently distinct from KIDO, and that no infringement could be established because the plaintiffs' registered mark stood on its own legal footing. The legal friction centered on a fundamental question: can a registered mark be infringed by a mark that is similar but not identical, and can an unregistered mark still attract legal protection when consumer confusion is overwhelmingly likely?

The Delhi High Court delivered a mixed ruling that surprised many observers. On the infringement claim, the court found that the defendants' use of KIDCO did not amount to infringement of the plaintiffs' registered KIDO mark. However, on the passing off claim, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the defendants' use of the unregistered KIDCO mark constituted passing off because there was a high likelihood of consumer confusion. The suit was decreed in part: a permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using KIDCO in India, effectively shutting down the infringing brand. However, the plaintiffs' claim for damages was dismissed, with the court noting that an interim injunction had already been in place during the proceedings, which limited the scope of monetary relief available.

For founders and IP professionals, this case delivers a dual-edged lesson. First, registration alone does not guarantee full protection, and a similar-sounding or similar-looking mark can still be restrained through the doctrine of passing off if consumer confusion is likely, even when the plaintiff's mark is unregistered. Second, the timing of injunctive relief matters: if an interim injunction was already protecting your brand during the litigation, you may not be able to claim damages for the period it was in force. The practical takeaway is clear, monitor the market aggressively for confusingly similar brands, act quickly to secure interim relief, and remember that both registered and unregistered marks can be powerful tools, but they work through different legal mechanisms.