Summary
A suit was instituted by Britannia Industries Ltd alleging infringement of the “Little Hearts” trade mark, 3D shape marks, packaging and trade dress, and copyright in product images. An ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was sought after allegedly infringing listings were identified on Amazon. It was observed that a prima facie case of triple identity was made out based on identical marks and shapes, identical goods, and identical trade channels. Defendants 1 to 4 were restrained from use and Amazon was directed to delist the impugned listings pending further orders.
Background of the Dispute
Britannia Industries Ltd (“Plaintiff”), an Indian food products company established in 1918, adopted the “Little Hearts” brand in 1988 and launched its distinctive sugar coated, heart shaped biscuits on 22 May 1993. The Plaintiff enjoys trademark protections, over the word marks, 3D shape marks as well as the packaging and trade dress in India. The brand “Little Hearts” alone generated ₹203.4 crores turnover for the Plaintiff in the period between 2024-2025, widely available on e-commerce websites as well.
In December 2025, the Plaintiff discovered infringing “Little Hearts Biscuits” on Amazon (Defendant 5), procured samples and identified Defendants 1 to 4 as operating jointly with identical marks and shapes, references to the “Britannia Little Hearts” gold red pack, and replicated images, the copyright in which vested in the Plaintiff.
Key Legal Issues
At the core lay the issue of deliberate, bad faith and dishonest adoption of the identical “Little Hearts” mark and 3D shape marks on identical products traded through identical channels, with the mala fide intent to mislead ordinary purchasers. An ad interim injunction was sought under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to avert consumer confusion and irreparable damage.
Arguments put forward
Submissions were put forward regarding adoption of the “Little Hearts” mark through trade mark registrations for word marks, 3D shapes and packaging and trade dress variants, sales revenue and e commerce presence. It was argued that Defendants 1 to 4 had collectively listed the infringing products on Amazon with a deceptively identical “Little Hearts” word mark, a 3D heart shape for biscuits, “About this item” listings falsely referring to “Britannia Little Hearts”, the gold red pack, and reproduction of Britannia’s copyrighted product images, which was relied upon as proof of knowledge and mala fide intent.
It was further argued that the mala fide use and adoption by the Defendants were likely to cause consumer confusion, leading consumers to assume the infringing goods to be emanating from or connected with Britannia, and diluting the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation built over decades.
Court’s Findings and Analysis
On conducting a side by side visual scrutiny, the Court was prima facie convinced of the similarity between the products. This perusal was stated to reveal infringement beyond doubt. Amazon listings portraying the infringing products as “Britannia Little Hearts” with Plaintiff’s images constituted explicit admission and deliberate deception, evidencing mala fide to ride upon the Plaintiff’s reputation.
The Court was convinced that it was a case of triple identity, namely identical marks and shapes, identical goods (sugar coated heart shaped biscuits), identical channels (e commerce) and identical consumer groups (average biscuit buyers).
Final Order and Conclusion
Until further orders, Defendants 1 to 4, their partners, directors, agents and distributors were restrained from manufacturing, selling, marketing or advertising the “Little Hearts” mark or shape or any identical or similar variants to the Plaintiff’s registrations, and from exploiting the Plaintiff’s copyrighted images in any manner. Defendant 5 (Amazon) was instructed to immediately delist or take down all such infringing listings. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar for hearing on 10 February 2026 and before the Court on 21 May 2026.
This decision reaffirms that in cases involving identical marks, identical goods and identical trade channels, ad-interim injunction is granted to prevent consumer confusion and safeguard accrued goodwill while court proceedings are ongoing.
Citation: Britannia Industries Ltd v. Shri Swastik Organics & Ors. CS (COMM) 1393/2025 & I.As. 32346-50/2025, Delhi High Court on 23 December 2025. Order available here.
Authored by Ms. Vidhi Kela and reviewed by Ms. Benita Alphonsa Basil.