Delhi High Court restrains trademark and shape infringement of Britannia ‘Little Hearts’ biscuits

Introduction

The Delhi High Court, in Britannia Industries Ltd v. Shri Swastik Organics & Ors., granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, marketing, or advertising biscuits bearing a trademark and shape identical or deceptively similar to Britannia’s well-known Little Hearts biscuits. The Court also directed Amazon, an e-commerce intermediary, to delist the infringing products from its platform. The order was passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora and reinforces the strong protection accorded under Indian law to registered trademarks, trade dress, and three-dimensional (3D) shape marks, particularly in cases involving dishonest adoption and online infringement.

This decision is important as it highlights how intellectual property rights extend beyond brand names to include the distinctive shape of products and how courts address infringement in the digital marketplace.

 Legal Framework and Statutory Provisions

The dispute primarily falls within the scope of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The relevant legal provisions and their significance are summarised below:

In addition, intermediary obligations under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, though not expressly discussed, are relevant in directing e-commerce platforms to delist infringing listings upon notice.

Facts of the Case

Britannia Industries Ltd has been using the trademark “Little Hearts” since 1988 and introduced its distinctive sugar-coated, heart-shaped biscuits in 1993. Over decades, the product has acquired immense goodwill and consumer recognition. Britannia holds valid and subsisting trademark registrations for both the word mark “Little Hearts” and the 3D shape of the biscuit.

The company discovered that Shri Swastik Organics and other associated defendants were selling biscuits on Amazon using the identical name “Little Hearts”. The listings allegedly made references to “Britannia Little Hearts” and reproduced images of Britannia’s original packaging. The biscuits sold by the defendants were also identical in shape to Britannia’s heart-shaped biscuits.

Britannia contended that such acts constituted trademark infringement and passing off, and were aimed at misleading consumers and unlawfully benefiting from Britannia’s goodwill.

Issues for Consideration

The principal issues before the Delhi High Court were as follows:

Analysis of Issues with Legal Concepts

Trademark Infringement and Likelihood of Confusion

Under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, infringement is established when an identical or deceptively similar mark is used in relation to identical goods, leading to a likelihood of confusion. In the present case, the defendants used the identical mark “Little Hearts” for biscuits, which are the same goods as those of Britannia. Given the long-standing reputation of Britannia’s product, the Court found a clear prima facie case of infringement.

Protection of Shape Marks and Trade Dress

Indian trademark law recognises the shape of goods as a protectable trademark when it is distinctive and registered. Britannia’s heart-shaped biscuit had been in continuous use for over three decades and had acquired secondary meaning in the minds of consumers. The defendants’ adoption of an identical shape was therefore not incidental but a clear infringement of Britannia’s registered 3D shape trademark.

Dishonest Adoption and Mala Fide Intent

The Court observed that the defendants’ conduct went beyond mere similarity. The use of the identical mark, copying of the biscuit’s shape, reference to “Britannia Little Hearts” in online listings, and reproduction of packaging images clearly demonstrated a dishonest intention to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of Britannia. Such mala fide conduct justified the grant of immediate injunctive relief.

Role and Responsibility of E-commerce Platforms

Although Amazon was not the manufacturer or seller of the infringing goods, the Court acknowledged that online marketplaces play a significant role in facilitating sales. Once infringement is brought to their notice, platforms are expected to act promptly. Accordingly, Amazon was directed to delist the infringing products to prevent continued violation of trademark rights.

Decision of the Court

After considering the pleadings and material on record, the Delhi High Court held that Britannia had established a strong prima facie case of trademark and shape infringement. The balance of convenience was found to be in favour of Britannia, and continued infringement was likely to cause irreparable harm.

The Court passed an interim injunction restraining the defendants, their partners, directors, agents, distributors, and all persons acting on their behalf from using, manufacturing, selling, marketing, or advertising goods bearing the impugned mark or shape “Little Hearts” or any other mark or shape identical or deceptively similar to Britannia’s registered trademarks. The Court further directed Amazon to delist the infringing products from its platform.

Procedural Status and Progress of the Case

The injunction granted is interim in nature. At the time of passing the order, none appeared on behalf of the defendants. The suit will now proceed for filing of written statements, evidence, and final adjudication. Until further orders, the interim injunction remains in force.

Key Takeaways

Conclusion

The ruling in Britannia Industries Ltd v. Shri Swastik Organics & Ors. reinforces the Indian judiciary’s pro–intellectual property approach. By protecting both the word mark and the three-dimensional shape of the product and extending directions to an online marketplace, the Delhi High Court has strengthened trademark enforcement in the digital era. The decision serves as a clear warning against look-alike products and unfair commercial practices, particularly in the fast-moving consumer goods sector.

"Unlock the Potential of Legal Expertise with LegalMantra.net - Your Trusted Legal Consultancy Partner”

Disclaimer: Every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this material in spite of this, errors may creep in. Any mistake, error or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition In no event the author shall be liable for any direct indirect, special or incidental damage resulting from or arising out of or in connection with the use of this information Many sources have been considered including Newspapers, Journals, Bare Acts, Case Materials , Charted Secretary, Research Papers etc

Mayank Garg

LegalMantra.net Team

mayank@legalmantra.net