For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP  CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn  

Introduction

The dispute between Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Shri Swastik Organics & Ors. (CS(COMM) 1393/2025) concerns the protection of a well-established consumer brand against unauthorized and deceptive use of its trademark and product identity in the online marketplace. Britannia Industries Ltd., the proprietor of the widely recognized “Little Hearts” biscuits, approached the Delhi High Court seeking urgent interim relief against sellers who were marketing identical products under the same name through an e-commerce platform.

The case highlights the increasing vulnerability of established brands to misuse in digital marketplaces and reiterates the role of trademark and copyright law in preventing consumer deception and unfair commercial practices. The Court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient grounds for immediate injunctive relief pending trial.

Fact of the Case

Britannia Industries Ltd. is a leading Indian food company with a long-standing presence in the consumer goods market. The company adopted the trademark “Little Hearts” in the year 1988 and, in 1993, introduced sugar-coated biscuits in a distinctive heart shape under this mark. Over the years, the product gained significant popularity and became closely associated with Britannia in the minds of consumers.

To protect its commercial identity, Britannia secured statutory registrations for the word mark “Little Hearts” in Class 30, with a user claim dating back to 22 May 1993. In addition, Britannia obtained registration for the three-dimensional shape of the heart-shaped biscuit, also in Class 30, claiming continuous use since the same date. The product enjoys substantial goodwill, reflected in sales figures of approximately ₹203 crores during the financial year 2024–2025.

In December 2025, Britannia discovered that biscuits bearing the name “Little Hearts Biscuits” were being sold on the Amazon platform by entities unconnected with the company. On examining the listings, Britannia found that the product name was identical to its registered trademark and that the biscuits were identical in shape to its registered 3D shape mark. Further, the product description on Amazon expressly referred to “Britannia Little Hearts” and the characteristic gold and red packaging associated exclusively with Britannia. The listing also reproduced images of Britannia’s original product, over which Britannia holds copyright.

Britannia procured the impugned product and identified the sellers as Shri Swastik Organics and associated individuals acting jointly in the manufacture and sale of the infringing goods. The suit was instituted directly before the Delhi High Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking urgent interim relief. There were no prior proceedings before any lower court. Despite advance service of notice through email, none of the defendants appeared before the Court at the interim stage.

Argument in Favour

Britannia contended that it is the prior adopter, prior user, and registered proprietor of the trademark “Little Hearts” as well as the registered owner of the distinctive heart-shaped biscuit. The plaintiff submitted that the defendants’ conduct amounted to blatant trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.

It was argued that the defendants had adopted an identical word mark for identical goods, namely biscuits, which were sold through the same trade channels and targeted the same class of consumers. Such use, according to Britannia, clearly attracted the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, where infringement is established upon the likelihood of confusion and does not require proof of actual deception.

Britannia further emphasized that the heart-shaped biscuit was protected by a registered three-dimensional shape mark and that the defendants had copied this shape without any distinguishing features. The identical replication of both the mark and the shape was asserted to be deliberate and dishonest.

A crucial aspect of the plaintiff’s case was the defendants’ conduct on the Amazon platform. The express reference to “Britannia Little Hearts” in the product description and the use of Britannia’s copyrighted images were cited as clear evidence of mala fide intent. According to the plaintiff, these actions demonstrated an attempt to mislead consumers into believing that the impugned goods originated from or were associated with Britannia.

Britannia characterised the matter as a case of triple identity, where the marks, the products, and the trade channels were all identical. In such circumstances, the plaintiff submitted that consumer confusion was inevitable, and that denial of interim relief would result in irreparable harm to its goodwill and reputation.

No submissions were made on behalf of the defendants. Although advance service of the suit and accompanying applications was affected, none of the defendant’s entered appearance before the Court. As a result, the Court proceeded to decide the interim application on the basis of the pleadings, documents, and submissions made by the plaintiff.

Court’s Decision

The Court first considered the plaintiff’s request for exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Holding that the suit contemplated urgent interim relief, the Court granted the exemption by relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815, which clarified that mandatory mediation may be dispensed with where immediate judicial intervention is required.

On merits, the Court compared the plaintiff’s trademark and product with the impugned mark and goods. It found that the defendants had adopted the identical mark “Little Hearts” and an identical heart-shaped biscuit. Applying to the test of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, the Court held that such a consumer would inevitably associate the defendants’ product with Britannia.

The Court placed significant reliance on the defendants’ Amazon listing, particularly the express reference to “Britannia Little Hearts” and the reproduction of Britannia’s product images. This conduct was treated as a clear indication of dishonest adoption and an attempt to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff.

The Court observed that the case involved triple identity, as the marks, products, trade channels, and consumer base were all identical. Being the prior user and registered proprietor, Britannia was entitled to protection at the interim stage.

Applying the principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court held that Britannia had established a strong prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, and that failure to grant relief would result in irreparable injury. Consequently, the Court restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising goods under the impugned mark and shape, restrained them from using Britannia’s copyrighted images, and directed the e-commerce platform to delist the infringing products.

Conclusion

The order in Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Shri Swastik Organics & Ors. reinforces the settled position that intellectual property law will extend robust protection to established brands against clear cases of imitation and misrepresentation. The Court’s approach demonstrates that where identical marks and products are used in the same commercial context, the inference of consumer confusion is unavoidable.

The decision is particularly significant in the context of online marketplaces, where deceptive listings and misuse of brand identifiers can cause rapid and widespread harm. By recognising the defendants’ conduct as dishonest at the interim stage, the Court ensured that the plaintiff’s goodwill and consumer trust were preserved in pending trial.

While the final determination of rights will take place after evidence is led, the interim order serves as a strong reminder that trademark and copyright law are not merely tools for commercial protection, but mechanisms to ensure fairness, transparency, and consumer confidence in the marketplace.