Amul Emerges As The Winner After Fighting For Two Decades Against Anul’s owner Shri Shakti Dairy

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

Vadodara District Court finally declared that ‘Amul’ is the true taste of India and not Anul. It took court almost 20 years to arrive at this decision. There have been instances, in the past where various organizations who have tried to sell their dairy products under similar trademark and failed.

Facts of the Case

Amul or Anand Milk Union Limited was founded in 1946 and Currently, it is one of the leading brands for dairy products in India. It is managed and run by the Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited, a co-operation. Back in 1998, by the time when Amul had established itself as reliable brand in dairy products market, Amul Dairy, and Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited, Major Marketing Body of all District Dairy Unions of Gujarat noticed that Shri Shakti Dairy was selling milk products in packets with labels such as ‘Anul Taaza’ and ‘Anul Shakti’ printed on them. These names matched and rhymed with brand and product name of Amul Dairy and Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited which were Amul Taaza and Amul Shakti respectively.

Amul served a legal notice to both, Shri Shakti Dairy and Kuldeep Enterprises. Kuldeep Enterprises were marketing products of Shri Shakti Dairy. They responded by saying that names are phonetically different, and there is no chance of any confusion between the two brands and they continued to sell their products under the same name. Unsatisfied by the reply Amul moved to District Court in Nadiad from where the case was transferred to the new Commercial Court in Vadodara.

Arguments advanced and the decision of the Case

Advocates representing Amul and Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited submitted that colour scheme used on the packets of Anul Taaza and Anul Shakti were very similar to that of Amul and furthermore, keeping in mind that products of Amul and Anul are also sold in rural areas where it is very easy for people to get confused between the two products. Moreover, it was argued that Shri Shakti dairy could not reason with a similar look and identical color, rather these were indications of malafide intention of the respondents to imitate and take advantage of the well-known trademark of Amul.

Court after listening to both the sides gave the verdict in favor of Amul restraining Shri Shakti Dairy and Kuldeep Enterprises along with their agents, dealers, and distributors from manufacturing, marketing, processing and packing milk under their labels.

Learning of the Case

From this case, we learn that it is not enough for brands to be just phonetically different, rather, they should be different from each other in more than one aspect such as colour, look, packaging among other things.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -