The case of Madhu Food Products v. Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd. revolves around trademark infringement and passing off concerning confectionery products. The dispute involves the respondent, Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd., which markets its products under the trademark HUNK, and the appellant, Madhu Food Products, which sells similar products under the mark HUNT. The core issue was whether the appellant’s use of the mark HUNT and its packaging was deceptively similar to the respondent’s trademark HUNK and trade dress, thereby misleading consumers and passing off its products as that of the respondent.

• The Respondent’s Case:
  • Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of food items such as biscuits, wafers, chocolates, cookies, and cakes.
  • The respondent claims to have coined the trademark HUNK in 2007 and applied for its registration on December 28, 2007, in Class 30 under a "proposed to be used" basis.
  • The respondent commenced commercial usage of the mark HUNK in 2018 and claims continuous use since then.
  • The respondent invested significantly in advertising, amounting to ₹74.71 crores over five years, and achieved a turnover of ₹55.76 crores during the financial year 2022-23.
  • The respondent alleged that the appellant was marketing its chocolate and caramel-coated wafer bars under the deceptively similar mark HUNT with a packaging that closely resembled the trade dress of HUNK.
• The Appellant’s Case:
  • Madhu Food Products (the appellant), a registered partnership firm, claimed to be engaged in producing world-class confectionery.
  • The appellant stated that it adopted the mark CHOCO HUNT in 2018 for chocolates, confectionaries, and wafers.
  • The mark CHOCO HUNT was registered under Class 30 with a proposed-to-be-used claim filed on October 27, 2018.
  • The appellant argued that it used its mark honestly and denied copying the respondent’s packaging or trade dress.
  • It claimed that its house brand was NEO, while the respondent used the brand PRIYA GOLD, thus making the products distinguishable.
• Procedural Background:
  • The respondent filed CS(COMM) 195/2023 against the appellant in the Commercial Court, alleging trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
  • The respondent also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking an interim injunction to restrain the appellant from using the trademark HUNT or any deceptively similar mark.
  • The Commercial Court passed an interim order in favor of the respondent, granting the injunction and appointing a Local Commissioner to seize and prepare an inventory of the infringing goods.
  • The appellant, aggrieved by the decision, filed an appeal (FAO (COMM) 157/2024) before the Delhi High Court, challenging the Commercial Court's order dated June 5, 2024.
• Issues Involved:
  • Whether the appellant’s use of the mark HUNT was deceptively similar to the respondent’s mark HUNK and likely to cause confusion among consumers?
• Appellant’s Submissions:
  • The appellant argued that it was the legitimate owner of the registered trademark CHOCO HUNT and that its mark was visually and phonetically different from HUNK.
  • It contended that the Commercial Court erred in not considering that the respondent had suppressed material facts, such as the existence of the registered mark CHOCO HUNT.
  • The appellant claimed that the similarity in packaging was merely due to the use of the color brown, which was common in the confectionery industry and could not be monopolized.
  • It further argued that its use of the word CHOCO in small font was irrelevant and did not amount to infringement.
• Respondent’s Submissions:
  • The respondent contended that it was the prior user of the mark HUNK and had extensively advertised and promoted the same.
  • It argued that the appellant intentionally reduced the visibility of the word CHOCO in CHOCO HUNT, making HUNT the prominent mark, which created a likelihood of confusion.
  • The respondent presented material, including advertisements featuring celebrities, to demonstrate the goodwill associated with HUNK.
  • The respondent also submitted physical samples of both products, highlighting the similarity in packaging, trade dress, and overall commercial impression.
• Discussion on Judgments Cited:
  • Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India (P) Ltd.: 1990 Supp SCC 727
    • The High Court referred to the principles laid down in this case to assess whether the interim injunction should be interfered with.
    • The Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. held that appellate courts should not lightly interfere with discretionary orders passed by lower courts unless they are perverse or arbitrary.
    • Applying this principle, the Delhi High Court held that the Commercial Court had correctly applied the law, and there was no reason to interfere with its discretion.
• Reasoning and Analysis of the Judges:
  • Prima Facie Similarity: The Delhi High Court observed that the competing products' packaging, trade dress, and color scheme were strikingly similar. The word CHOCO in the appellant’s mark was displayed in an insignificant font, while HUNT was prominently featured, creating an overall impression of similarity with the respondent’s HUNK.
  • Prior User Advantage: The court noted that the respondent was the prior user of the mark HUNK since July 2018, supported by invoices, while the appellant filed for its mark CHOCO HUNT in October 2018, indicating subsequent use.
  • Misleading Trade Dress: The court held that the similarity in trade dress, including packaging color and design, created a likelihood of confusion, strengthening the case of passing off.
  • No Suppression of Facts: The court rejected the appellant’s claim of suppression of facts, stating that the respondent's failure to search for CHOCO HUNT was not misleading or fraudulent. The court found no reason to disbelieve the respondent’s claim of conducting a trademark search.
• Final Decision:
  • The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the Commercial Court's injunction order.
  • The appellant was ordered to pay ₹50,000 in costs.
• Law Settled in the Case:
  • The judgment reinforces the principle that prior use of a trademark holds significant weight in determining infringement disputes.
  • It clarifies that minor variations in trade dress or font size do not absolve a party from infringement if the overall commercial impression is deceptive.
  • It reiterates that appellate courts should not interfere with the discretion of lower courts unless the orders are arbitrary or capricious.

Case Title: Madhu Food Products Vs. Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Order: August 8, 2024
Case No.: FAO (COMM) 157/2024
Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6118-DB
Court: Delhi High Court
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539