Amul Sues Maruti Metals: Claims Infringement Of Trademark

CASE BACKGROUND

• Maruti Metals used ‘Amul’ on its kitchenware products claiming that it was a registered trademark.
• Widely known as ‘Amul’, The Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd, instituted a civil suit, through Adv. Abhishek Singh claimed infringement of its well-known trademark ‘AMUL’ and hence the court issued summons to Maruti Metals.
• On October 25, the matter will be presented to the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for the conclusion of pleadings, admission or rejection of documents, and marking of exhibits. While Maruti Metals had another trademark pending for adjudication in front of the Registrar, Senior Advocate Sunil Dalal stated that the GCMMF's Rectification Application was already registered.

CASE PROCEEDINGS

• In a trademark infringement case alleging that a corporation was using a misleading mark, namely 'Amul Cookware,' the Delhi High Court granted Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd, commonly known as 'Amul (Anand Milk Union Limited),' an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
• On August 13, the court issued a notice to Maruti Metals, a tea company, preventing it from dealing with the trademarks of Amul or any other mark that is same or reasonably similar to the well-known AMUL Trademarks of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd in any way.
• Justice C Hari Shankar, stated: The term "AMUL is a unique name with no etymological significance. It is inextricably linked to the plaintiff's products in the minds of the general public. Any use of the word "AMUL" as a trademark by anybody other than AMUL is prima facie infringement "despite witnessing what appears to be a prima facie case in favor of AMUL A hearing date of September 9, 2021, was also set by the court.
• Sunil Dalal, the Senior Advocate for Anand Milk Union Ltd, stated that the defendant company had misrepresented its trademark as registered by using the superscript with the infringing mark. As a result, the company was accused of using an unregistered and deceptive trademark.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE CASE?