Unilever Plc v. Kanha Dairy and Food Products

In the world of consumer brands, a name is more than a label — it is a promise, a reputation, and often, a company's most valuable asset. When a smaller player borrows a name that sits too close to a globally recognized mark, the collision is rarely quiet. The dispute between Unilever Plc and Kanha Dairy and Food Products is a textbook reminder that trademark law does not forgive imitation, no matter how small the infringer or how different the product category may seem.

Unilever Plc, one of the world's most recognizable consumer goods conglomerates, held rights in the 'FEAST' trademark — a brand long associated with its well-known confectionery products. Kanha Dairy and Food Products, a smaller player in the food and dairy space, adopted and used a mark that Unilever alleged was deceptively similar to its own. Believing that Kanha Dairy's use of the mark would cause confusion among consumers and dilute the distinctiveness of its established brand, Unilever filed a commercial IP suit seeking relief on the grounds of both trademark infringement and passing off. The matter was heard under the relevant provisions of the Letters Patent Act, which governs the jurisdiction and powers of the concerned High Court in such commercial disputes.

Unilever argued that the 'FEAST' mark had acquired strong reputation and goodwill through long-standing use, and that Kanha Dairy's adoption of a deceptively similar mark amounted to both infringement of its statutory trademark rights and passing off — the common law tort protecting a brand holder against misrepresentation that damages its goodwill. On the other side, Kanha Dairy sought to defend its use of the mark, presumably arguing that its products operated in a different segment or that no actual confusion had been demonstrated. The core legal friction centered on whether the similarity between the marks was sufficient to deceive consumers and whether the defendant's use could be allowed to continue without harming the plaintiff's established brand equity.

The court ruled decisively in favor of Unilever. Leave was granted under the Letters Patent Act to entertain the suit, and the court decreed the matter in Unilever's favor. A perpetual injunction was issued restraining Kanha Dairy and Food Products from using the impugned mark, effectively shutting down the infringing use. The judgment affirmed that the adoption of a deceptively similar mark by the defendant constituted both trademark infringement and passing off, entitling the plaintiff to the full scope of equitable relief available under the law.

For founders and brand builders, the lesson is sharp and simple: a trademark is not just a creative name — it is a legal asset that must be cleared before use, not after. Before launching any product, conduct thorough trademark searches, and if you find a mark that is even close to an established brand, treat it as a red flag. The cost of rebranding after a court-ordered injunction is far heavier than the cost of choosing a distinctive name from the start. Imitation may seem like a shortcut to recognition, but in trademark law, it is the fastest route to a courtroom defeat.