CASE BRIEF: Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. vs. Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd.

Introduction 

The question of trademark infringement and the uniqueness of the “KRISHNA” brand in connection with dairy goods are at the centre of the Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. vs. Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. dispute. In order to stop the respondent, Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. (henceforth referred to as “the respondent”) from using the trademark “KRISHNA” in its product labelling, the appellant, Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. (henceforth referred to as “the appellant”), requested an interim injunction against the latter. Important issues are brought up by the case, including the usage of names connected to deities, the secondary uniqueness of trademarks, and the laws governing trademark registration and infringement. 

Background of the case

Parties Concerned: 

In 1992, Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd., the appellant, began producing and marketing ghee, milk, and milk products. Sales statistics increased from ₹47.29 crores in 1997-1998 to ₹300 crores in the following years, according to the corporation, which claimed a notable increase in sales. Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd., a rival in the dairy products industry, started utilising the trademark “PARUL’S LORD KRISHNA” for its ghee products. 

Registering a trademark: 

The appellant is the owner of a trademark registration for the word “KRISHNA” in a unique form that resembles a label. This registration, according to the appellant, gave them the sole right to use the term “KRISHNA” in connection with dairy products.

The origin of the dispute: 

The disagreement started when the respondent started marketing ghee with the name “PARUL’S LORD KRISHNA.” According to the appellant, this use would weaken their trademark rights and cause consumer confusion.

Legal issues of the case

The court had to decide on a number of legal questions raised by the case: 

1. Secondary Uniqueness: Whether the appellant could assert exclusive rights to use the trademark “KRISHNA” in the dairy products sector due to its secondary distinctiveness. 
2. Deity Name Monopolisation: The question of whether one entity might monopolise a common name connected to a deity, such “KRISHNA,” to the detriment of others. 
3. Standards for Interim Injunction: The requirements for issuing an interim injunction while awaiting trial, with special attention to the possibility of consumer confusion and the parties’ relative convenience.

The analysis of the court 

Secondary Uniqueness: 

The court observed that the Learnt Single Judge had taken into account a number of rulings in which common words gained secondary distinctiveness. The court underlined that secondary uniqueness is essentially a factual finding. The court accepted that several manufacturers utilised the name “KRISHNA” in their trademarks, which might contradict the appellant’s assertion that rising sales numbers proved secondary distinctiveness. It must be demonstrated that customers particularly identify the appellant’s products with the trademark; the court emphasised that a simple rise in sales does not automatically establish uniqueness.

Monopolisation of Names for Deities: 

The court concurred with the learnt Single Judge’s assessment that monopolisation of a deity’s name is generally discouraged by the law. The appellant’s claim to exclusivity over the term in the context of dairy products is further complicated by the court’s observation that Lord Krishna is frequently connected to milk and butter. The court noted that permitting one organisation to monopolise the word “KRISHNA” may cause serious misunderstandings among the general public and lessen the name’s cultural value.

Standards for Interim Injunctions: 

The appellant must prove a prima facie allegation of trademark infringement, the court said, restating the rules regulating the issuance of temporary injunctions. In order to evaluate the circumstances, the learnt Single Judge had asked three crucial questions: Whether secondary distinctiveness had been attained by the appellant’s trademark. Will the appellant be able to control the name “KRISHNA.” Whether a trademark registration could be taken into account in the event of an infringement lawsuit.

“PARUL’S” and “LORD” shall be printed with the same prominence as “KRISHNA” in order to prevent consumer confusion, the court remarked, according to the learnt Single Judge. The court acknowledged that the name “KRISHNA” could mislead customers about the product’s origin if it were given excessive prominence. The court underlined that assessing whether consumers are likely to be confused depends heavily on how the trademark is presented overall on the product label.

Legal precedents: 

The court cited the ruling in The Registrar of Trade Marks vs. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd., which determined that a common word’s exclusive rights are not conferred by trademark registration. Wander Ltd. & Anr. vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., which described the criteria for appellate review of discretionary orders, was also cited by the court. The idea that common or descriptive terminology cannot be monopolised was emphasised by these cases, particularly when they are widely used in the business.

Perception of the Consumer: 

The court emphasised how crucial consumer perception is to trademark law. It stated that a crucial element in identifying trademark infringement is the possibility of customer confusion. The appellant must show that customers particularly identify the trademark “KRISHNA” with its products, not with the broader category of dairy products, the court stressed.

The market environment: 

The court recognised that the market for dairy products is very competitive and that identical trademarks are common. In a large market like India, where a lot of manufacturers use the name “KRISHNA” in their branding, it was observed that the appellant’s claim of exclusivity were undermined. The market and the widespread use of comparable phrases by other industry participants must be taken into consideration when evaluating a trademark’s distinctiveness, the court noted.

Conclusion 

In the end, Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd.’s appeal was denied by the Delhi High Court, which agreed with the learnt Single Judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s claim of distinctiveness and exclusivity over the name “KRISHNA” was not adequately supported. The court underlined that trademark law must take a balanced approach, especially when it comes to names that are connected to deities and widely used terms in the marketplace. The court’s appreciation of the cultural value of the term “KRISHNA” and the significance of avoiding consumer confusion in a competitive market is reflected in the verdict.

Implications 

The usage of names connected to religious figures and the idea of secondary distinction are two areas where this decision has important ramifications for Indian trademark law. It emphasises how crucial consumer perception is in establishing trademark rights and how difficult it is for companies to claim exclusivity over widely used or culturally significant phrases. The decision serves as a reminder that the rights of other market participants and the cultural context in which the property functions must be taken into consideration when determining the extent of trademark protection.