Bombay High Court grants injunction protecting 'NATURAL' ice cream trademark against similar use

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 27 October 2026

Case: Natural Ice Cream Pvt. Ltd. v. Natural Ice Cream & Ors.
Court: Bombay High Court
Bench: Justice R.I. Chagla
Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1234
Decided: 15 May 2024
Statutes: Trade Marks Act, 1999 — s.29
Source: Bar & Bench

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

In Natural Ice Cream Pvt. Ltd. v. Natural Ice Cream & Ors., the Bombay High Court (Justice R.I. Chagla) on 2024-05-15 granted an injunction under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, protecting the 'NATURAL' trademark for ice cream, finding the defendants' use of 'NATURAL' for similar products to be an infringement.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The use of an identical or deceptively similar mark for identical or similar goods or services constitutes trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, warranting an injunction.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should advise clients to conduct thorough trademark searches before adopting a brand name. Litigants seeking to protect their trademarks must demonstrate prior use and registration (if applicable) and the likelihood of confusion among consumers.

Key Legal Takeaways

1The court found the defendant's use of 'NATURAL' for ice cream to be an infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark.
2An injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using the 'NATURAL' mark or any deceptively similar mark.
3The court emphasized the importance of protecting established brand identity and preventing consumer confusion.

The Legal Issue Natural Ice Cream Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit seeking to restrain the defendants, Natural Ice Cream & Ors., from using the trademark 'NATURAL' or any deceptively similar mark for their ice cream products. The plaintiff contended that they were the prior and registered users of the 'NATURAL' trademark for ice cream and that the defendants' use constituted trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Court's Reasoning The Bombay High Court, through Justice R.I. Chagla, found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court observed that the plaintiff's 'NATURAL' mark was well-known and associated with ice cream products. The defendants' use of an identical mark for identical goods was likely to cause confusion among the public and dilute the distinctiveness of the plaintiff's trademark. The court held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, and irreparable harm would be caused if the injunction was not granted.

What Follows The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, and anyone acting on their behalf, from using the trademark 'NATURAL' or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'NATURAL' trademark for ice cream or any related products. The defendants are prohibited from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any goods under the infringing mark pending the final disposal of the suit.