Unilever Plc v. Preeti Ice Creams

Commercial IP Suit (L) No.601 of 2019

Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Preeti Ice Creams alleging infringement and passing off related to the trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, imposing perpetual injunctions on the defendant.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Bombay High Court
Case Number
Commercial IP Suit (L) No.601 of 2019
Judge(s)
S.J. Kathawalla

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Unilever Plc vs Preeti Ice Creams is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkC/RA/43/2022

Mankind Pharma LimitedvsTrivigya Bioscience

In a trademark dispute concerning the 'KIND' family of marks, Mankind Pharma Limited successfully secured an undertaking from Trivigya Bioscience. The respondent acknowledged the propriety of Mankind's marks and voluntarily agreed to cease using the contested mark CDKIND in relation to pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, the rectification application was disposed of as not pressed, resolving the conflict amicably.

trademarkC.S.(OS. NO.939/2002)

Pfizer Ireland PharmaceuticalsvsIntas Pharmaceuticals And Anr.

The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals against Intas Pharmaceuticals, finding that the defendants' use of the mark 'LIPICOR' was deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff's globally reputed trademark 'LIPItor'. Despite the plaintiff not yet having entered the Indian market, the court recognized the trans-border reputation of LIPItor. The judgment emphasized the need for a stricter approach in pharmaceutical cases due to the potential disastrous effects on consumer health, thereby protecting the goodwill associated with the original brand.

trademarkW.P.(C) 3851/2019

Intellectual Property Attorneys AssociationvsThe Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr

The petitioner challenged the refusal of trade mark registration applications due to non-speaking orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court held that Section 18(5) mandates the Registrar to record and communicate the grounds for refusal in writing. Consequently, Rule 36 of the Trade Marks Rules was deemed arbitrary and inconsistent with the statute.

trademarkCS(OS) No.1084/2013

Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A.vsItalian Edibles Pvt. Ltd.

Nestle filed a suit against Italian Edibles alleging passing off and misuse of its well-known trademark, "MAGGI HUNGROOO." The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that their business was conducted outside Delhi. However, the High Court ruled in favor of Nestle, holding that since the plaintiff had an office in Delhi, the goods were advertised on a website accessible in Delhi, and there was an imminent threat of market entry in Delhi, the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.

trademarkO.S.A. Nos. 134 of 1990 and 135 of 1990 (arising from C. S. No. 478 of 1990 and C. S. No. 477 of 1990)

G.T.C. Industries Ltd., BombayvsI.T.C. Limited, Madras

The dispute involved two suits regarding alleged infringement and passing off of cigarette brands. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's 'Gold Flake' cigarettes were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered 'Wills Fold Flake' trade mark (No. 110438).

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