Court orders Cadila to pay Rs50,000 in costs to Diat Foods in `Sugarfree' case
24 Jul 2010
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an application filed by Cadila Healthcare seeking to restraint Diat Foods (India) Ltd from using the words `Sugarfree' on its cookies and instead ordered Cadila to pay Rs50,000 as costs to Diet Foods, to compensate for unnecessary litigation.
A division bench headed by Justice Bandar Durez Ahmed of the Bombay High Court pronounced the order in a case filed by Cadila challenging an earlier order of the court (dated 9 July 2008). The bench also did not pass any interim orders in favour of Cadila.
Diat Foods (India) sells a range of sugar-free products under the name `Sugarless Bliss'.
Cadila claimed the words `Sugarfree' to be their trademark `Sugar Free', but Justice Ahmed dismissed the application seeking an injunction restraining Diat Foods from using the words `Sugarfree' to describe its products.
"Considering the manner in which the expression `Sugarfree' has been used by the defendant in the packaging in respect of its products, there does not appear to be any possibility whatsoever of a consumer being misled into believing that the plaintiff's product `Sugar Free' has been used as an ingredient in the preparation of the defendant's product -`Cookies'. Consequently, there is no possibility of consumers being misled into purchasing the defendant's product thinking that it is in some way connected with the plaintiff.
The expression `Sugarfree' has been used entirely as a catchy legend and in a descriptive sense and not as a brand name or a trademark…. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the plaintiff is not entitled to an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC.
