In the case of Preetendra Singh Aulakh v Green Light Foods Pvt Ltd The plaintiff claimed that since the 1970s, he has been working with his family to sell cooking oils, unprocessed, raw agricultural and horticultural products, as well as fresh fruits and vegetables. He claimed that after his business began using the mark “Monsoon Harvest,” the defendant company began using the mark Wingreen little changes in the plaintiff’s trademark which resulted in the plaintiff company losing money and goodwill in the market. As a result, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to stop the defendant company from using a similar mark before the high court.
The defendant claims that it has been producing products with the “Monsoon Harvest” marks since 2015, including millet-based nutrition bars, cookies, muesli, granola, morning cereals, nut bars, granola bars, energy bars, snack bars, and confectionery. They continued by arguing that there is no issue with either trademark infringement or passing off because the company has since acquired a new mark, “Wingreens Monsoon Harvest,” which better distinguishes the plaintiff’s and defendant’s marks.
Conclusion of Court
The Delhi High single judge bench Justice Navin Chawla issued the order, noting that the owners of the mark “Monsoon Harvest Farms” had been a prior user and that it was, at least on the surface, visually and phonologically similar to “Monsoon Harvest.” As a result, the court barred food and beverage company Green Light Foods Private Limited from using the marks “Wingreens Monsoon Harvest” or any other trademark similar to “Monsoon Harvest Farms.”
The single judge bench order prohibits the defendant from using the name “MONSOON HARVEST,” the logo, the new mark, and any other name that is confusingly and deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s earlier and registered trademarks “MONSOON HARVEST FARMS” as a trade mark, part of a trade mark, a company name, part of a domain name, or in any other way, so infringe on the plaintiff’s rights.
According to the bench’s application of the test of an imprudent buyer of average intelligence with a spotty memory, the addition of the phrase “Wingreens” alone is insufficient to distinguish the two. As food products are sold over the counter, the plaintiff’s and defendant’s goods are comparable and related, making any attempt to separate them based on one being processed and the other being unprocessed seem artificial. Therefore, it concluded that the plaintiff had established a preliminary injunction in their favour and made that decision.