PepsiCo, Inc. v. Majji Suresh

(T)OP(TM) No.433 of 2023

PepsiCo successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to strike off a confusingly similar trademark, 'PEPPS,' registered by Majji Suresh. The court found that the mark PEPPS bears striking phonetic and visual resemblance to PepsiCo's globally recognized mark, PEPSI. Given PepsiCo's established reputation and well-known status of its brand, the court allowed the petition, directing the cancellation of the infringing registration.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
(T)OP(TM) No.433 of 2023
Judge(s)
N.Seshasayee

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in PepsiCo, Inc. vs Majji Suresh is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 32/2023, I.A. 20328/2023, 20329/2023

Meenu (Trading As M/S Albro Industries)vsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications filed by Meenu (M/S Albro Industries) in an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order. The court condoned a 11-day delay in filing the Memorandum of Appeal and allowed the appellant exemption from submitting original documents. The core dispute, concerning whether a counter statement was properly served during opposition proceedings for the 'AIRODO' trademark, has been listed before the Joint Registrar to complete service, setting the stage for further litigation.

trademarkLPA No.613/2009

Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd.vsKoninklijke Philips Electricity Nv

The Delhi High Court dismissed Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd.'s appeal, upholding the rejection of its trade mark application for 'Philips' in respect of non-electrical pressure cookers. The court found overwhelming evidence that Koninklijke Philips Electricity Nv had established extensive goodwill with the mark since 1950 across related goods like electrical appliances. Given the similarity of the product categories and the common consumer base, the court concluded that Kunj Aluminium was engaging in commercial dishonesty by trading upon Philips' established reputation.

trademarkCS(COMM) 126/2019

M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd.vsM/S Aum Universal Inc. & Anr.

The Delhi High Court permitted M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd. to amend its plaint in a suit concerning trademark and passing off infringement. The amendment was sought because a previously pending trademark application (Z GOLD) had subsequently been granted registration by the Registrar of Trademarks. Both parties consented to the change, allowing the plaintiff to incorporate this new registered right into the ongoing litigation.

trademarkCS(COMM) 118/2023

Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors.vsWipro Enterprises Private Limited

Himalaya Wellness Company initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking to challenge the validity of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited's trademark registration 'EVECARE.' The court allowed the plaintiffs' application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the court framed a specific issue questioning whether the defendant's mark is invalid and liable for removal/cancellation from the Register of Trademarks, setting the stage for further substantive litigation.

trademarkCS(COMM) 657/2024

Play Games 24X7 Private LimitedvsWww10Xbettcom & Ors.

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application to implead additional infringing websites, domains, and their registrars in a suit concerning trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court extended the existing ad-interim injunction to these newly added defendants. The order imposes strict restraints on the new parties, prohibiting them from using the 'MY11CIRCLE' mark or similar names, while also directing domain name registrars to suspend/block infringing domains and disclose subscriber information.

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