AMUL VS AMULETI

Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. & Anr. v. Terre Primitive S.R.L. & Ors., CS (COMM) 1234/2023, Delhi High Court, decided on September 15, 2023.

INTRODUCTION TO CASE –

The Amul vs. Amuleti case, decided by the Delhi High Court on September 15, 2023, involved a trademark infringement dispute where Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (GCMMF), owner of the "Amul" brand, successfully obtained an injunction against the Italian company Terre Primitive S.R.L. for marketing cookies and chocolate-coated biscuits under the brand name "Amuleti." The court found that "Amuleti" was deceptively similar to "Amul," likely to cause consumer confusion, and ordered the removal of infringing products and social media accounts promoting them. This ruling underscore the protection of indigenous brands from foreign infringement.

FACTS OF THE CASE

·??????? Parties Involved:

Plaintiff: Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (GCMMF), owner of the “Amul” brand.

Defendant: Terre Primitive S.R.L., an Italian company marketing cookies and chocolate-coated biscuits under the brand name “Amuleti.”

·??????? Trademark at Issue:

Plaintiff’s Trademark: “Amul,” a well-known brand in India associated with dairy products.

Defendant’s Trademark: “Amuleti,” used for cookies and chocolate-coated biscuits.

·??????? Allegations:

GCMMF alleged that Terre Primitive’s use of the “Amuleti” mark was deceptively similar to its “Amul” trademark.

The plaintiff claimed that the similarity in the marks was likely to cause confusion among consumers and dilute the distinctiveness of the “Amul” brand.

·??????? Evidence Presented:

GCMMF provided evidence showing the visual and phonetic similarities between “Amul” and “Amuleti.”

The plaintiff also demonstrated the extensive use and recognition of the “Amul” trademark in India.

·??????? Defendant’s Argument:

Terre Primitive argued that “Amuleti” was a distinct mark and that there was no intention to deceive or cause confusion.

The defendant claimed that the addition of “eti” to “Amul” differentiated the two marks sufficiently.

·??????? Court’s Findings:

The court found that “Amuleti” closely resembled “Amul” in terms of script, design, and overall presentation.

It was determined that the similarity was likely to cause confusion among consumers.

The court noted that Terre Primitive’s use of a similar mark appeared to be a deliberate attempt to benefit from Amul’s established reputation and goodwill.

·??????? Relief Sought:

GCMMF sought a permanent injunction to restrain Terre Primitive from using the “Amuleti” mark.

The plaintiff also requested the removal of infringing products from the market and social media platforms.

?

ISSUE –

The primary issue in the Amul vs. Amuleti case was whether Terre Primitive S.R.L.'s use of the "Amuleti" mark for its cookies and chocolate-coated biscuits constituted trademark infringement and passing off, given its deceptive similarity to the well-known "Amul" trademark owned by Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (GCMMF), which could potentially cause consumer confusion and dilute the distinctiveness of the "Amul" brand.

?

COURT” S REASONING –

The court found that "Amuleti" was deceptively similar to "Amul" in terms of script, design, and overall presentation, which was likely to cause consumer confusion and dilute the distinctiveness of the "Amul" brand. The court noted that Terre Primitive's use of the similar mark appeared to be a deliberate attempt to benefit from Amul's established reputation and goodwill. Emphasizing the importance of protecting indigenous brands from foreign infringement, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining Terre Primitive from using the "Amuleti" mark, ordered the removal of infringing products from the market and social media platforms, and directed Meta Inc. to block or remove Terre Primitive's social media accounts promoting the infringing products.

?

JUDGEMENT-

In the Amul vs. Amuleti case, the Delhi High Court delivered a judgment in favor of Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (GCMMF), the owner of the "Amul" brand. The court issued a permanent injunction against Terre Primitive S.R.L., restraining them from using the "Amuleti" mark or any other mark deceptively similar to "Amul."

The court also ordered the removal of all infringing products from the market and Terre Primitive's website. Additionally, Meta Inc. was directed to block or remove Terre Primitive's social media accounts promoting the infringing products. The judgment emphasized the importance of protecting indigenous brands from foreign infringement and highlighted the need to safeguard the interests of Indian businesses.

?

The Amul vs. Amuleti case is a strong example of the judiciary's commitment to protecting well-known trademarks and supporting indigenous brands. In my view, this ruling is crucial for maintaining the integrity of established brands like Amul, which have built significant goodwill and consumer trust over the years.

?

By setting a clear precedent that even slight modifications to a well-known mark can constitute infringement, the court has sent a strong message to potential infringers. For businesses, this case underscores the importance of conducting thorough trademark searches and ensuring that new brands or products do not infringe on existing trademarks. It also highlights the need for robust legal strategies to protect intellectual property rights. For consumers, the judgment helps ensure that they can trust the brands they recognize and are not misled by deceptively similar products. This protection is vital for maintaining confidence in the marketplace. Overall, the decision promotes a fair and competitive business environment, which is beneficial for both businesses and consumers. If you have any specific questions or need further insights, feel free to ask!