Court affirms prior user rights of M/s. Vaidehi Agro Oils Pvt Ltd against M/s. Sri Tulasi Industries for deceptively similar "Tasty Nutts" mark, citing risk of consumer confusion and passing off.
In a significant trademark law judgment dated September 16, 2026, the Telangana High Court has upheld a temporary injunction in favor of M/s. Vaidehi Agro Oils Private Limited, restraining M/s. Sri Tulasi Industries from using the mark "Tasty Nutts" which was held to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark "Tasty Gold." The Court's detailed order was passed by Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.161 of 2026, dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants seeking to vacate the interim order.
The plaintiff, engaged in manufacturing and marketing edible oils since 2000, holds multiple valid trademarks registered under Class 29, including Nos. 3136998, 4039640, 5257288, and 5257289, alongside copyright registrations for its distinctive artistic labels. Over nearly 25 years, it has built substantial goodwill and reputation, with annual sales turnover reportedly reaching close to Rs. 500 crores. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, who entered the edible oil market only recently, adopted the mark "Tasty Nutts" (also branded as "Namaskar Tasty Nutts") with a similar phonetic and visual trade dress, including a red color scheme, to mislead consumers-especially illiterate and semi-literate buyers-into believing the products originated from the plaintiff.
The defendants argued that "Tasty" is a common descriptive word used globally and cannot be monopolized, and that their packaging was sufficiently distinct, featuring different logos, artistic work, and the umbrella brand "Namaskar." They also filed rectification and cancellation proceedings against the plaintiff's trademarks and claimed the plaintiff's legal notices amounted to groundless threats aimed at stifling competition.
However, the Trial Court and the High Court rejected these contentions after evaluating the evidence. The Court emphasized the plaintiff's prior and continuous use of the mark since 2000 and found that the combined mark "Tasty Gold" had acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning, warranting protection against infringement and passing off. The Court noted that the defendants' use of the first dominant syllable "Tasty," combined with the red color scheme and similar trade dress, was likely to cause deception among consumers.
Importantly, the Court clarified that despite the pendency of rectification proceedings before the Registrar of Trademarks, the Trial Court retained jurisdiction to grant interlocutory relief including temporary injunctions under Section 124(5) of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
The Court also highlighted established Supreme Court precedents emphasizing protection of prior users' rights and the test for deceptive similarity, including the cases of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ruston and Hornby Limited v. Zamindara Engineering Company, and Amrit Dhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta.
Balancing convenience and potential irreparable loss, the Court found that the plaintiff's long-standing goodwill and reputation outweighed the defendants' recent market entry. The defendants' reliance on third-party use of "Tasty" in other marks was dismissed given prior injunctions in similar disputes.
Accordingly, the High Court vacated the interim suspension granted in favor of the defendants and upheld the temporary injunction restraining the use of "Tasty Nutts," thereby reinforcing the importance of protecting trademark rights and preventing consumer confusion in competitive markets.
Bottom Line:
Trademark Law - Temporary Injunction - Protection of prior user rights over trademark "Tasty Gold" granted against infringement and passing off by defendants using deceptively similar trademark "Tasty Nutts."
Statutory provision(s): Trademarks Act, 1999 - Sections 9, 27(2), 28, 29, 34, 124(5), 134; Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 62
