Patanjali for Education, Kenley for Water Bottles, and Head Racer Trade Dress enforcement

In this post, we bring to you 3 cases relating to trademarks. One case relates to a composite mark including the word ‘Patanjali’, and another case relates to use of ‘Kenley’ for water bottles. The third case relates to enforcement of trade dress.

Case Notes
Composite logo disclaiming ‘Patanjali’ and ‘Prayag’ can go for advertisement, says the Delhi High Court

The Registrar of Trademarks refused a trademark application filed by Maharashi Patanjali Vidya Mandir in several classes because the trademark contained the word ‘Patanjali’, which is recognized as a well-known mark for ayurvedic, herbal, personal care, and so on. The refusal order was passed based on Section 9(1)(b) and Section 11(1)(a) and (b). While the appeal was pending, the applicant modified its application in classes 16, 25, and 41.

The modified application relates to a composite logo, containing several features such as an encircled device of a book with a rising sun, with the words “MAHARISHI PATANJALI VIDYA MANDIR SAMITI”, “PRAYAG”. The applicant also disclaimed the words ‘Patanjali’ and ‘Prayag’. Based on the mark and the disclaimer, the Court ordered the mark to be advertised before acceptance. The Court also asked that a copy of the order be sent to the proprietors, whose marks were cited by the Registrar of Trademarks in the refusal order.

This image contains the device mark which consists of a book with rising sun, with the words "MAHARISHI PATANJALI VIDYA MANDIR SAMITI" and "PRAYAG".

Citation: Maharashi Patanjali Vidya Mandir … vs Registrar Trade Marks, Delhi High Court, 09 February, 2024, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 109/2021

Permanent injunction against use of Coca Cola’s ‘Kinley’ trademark and bottle trade dress

The Delhi High Court recently granted a permanent injunction against the use of ‘Kenley’, which is similar to Coca Cola’s ‘Kinley’ trademark for water bottles. The Court also granted an injunction against use of the trade dress of the bottle as well as the two-drop design. Additionally, the Court ordered the destruction of the seized infringing water bottles.
The plaintiff and the defendant’s bottles are shown hereunder.

This consists the image of the Plaintiff's trademark "Kinley" and the Defendant's trademark 'Kenley".
This images consists of the labels used on the bottles by the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Citation: The Coca-Cola Company vs Mr. Subhash Chand, Delhi High Court, 7 February, 2024, CS(COMM) 247/2023 & I.A. 2987/2024

Exparte injunction against use of ‘Ball Head Racer’ trade dress and packaging

The Delhi High Court has recently granted an exparte injunction against the use of ‘Ball Head Racer’ trade dress and packaging. The plaintiff in the case, Bombay Metal Works, argued that the defendant copied its trade dress, which includes flaps and display of 3 rings. Convinced, the Court granted an exparte injunction restraining the defendant from using the said trade dress.

The images of the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s products are as follows:

This image shows the Plaintiff's and Defendant's products with the mark "Ball Head Racers".

Citation:The Bombay Metal Works P. Ltd vs R.S. Industries Regd. & Anr, Delhi High Court, 07 February, 2024, CS(COMM) 54/2024, I.A. 1380/2024 & I.A. 1381/2024


While the two cases involving Kinley and Head Racer trade dress are quite straight forward, they indicate the increasing importance being given by Courts to trade dress and related infringement and passing off. The case relating to the composite mark including ‘Patanjali’ reflects that mere presence of a mark in the trademark would not necessarily amount to identity or similarity, which might give rise to consumer confusion.


The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.

If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: [email protected] or 91-80-26860414/24/34.