Delhi High court restrains food company from using 'Monsoon Harvest' in its name after Monsoon Harvest Farms sues for infringement

The Delhi High Court recently restrained a food and beverages firm Green Light Foods Private Limited from using the marks 'Monsoon Harvest’, ‘Wingreens Monsoon Harvest’ or any other trademark similar to ‘Monsoon Harvest Farms’ after the latter filed a suit for infringement..Justice Navin Chawla passed the order noting that the proprietors of the mark ‘Monsoon Harvest Farms’ have been a prior user and prima facie, it was visually and phonetically similar to ‘Monsoon Harvest’.“In view of the above, the defendant is restrained from using the mark ‘MONSOON HARVEST’ and/or the logo and/or for the new mark and/or any other mark or name identical and/or deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s earlier and registered trademarks MONSOON HARVEST FARMS either as, a trade mark or part of a trade mark, a trade name or corporate name or as part of a trade or corporate name, part of a domain name or in any other manner whatsoever, so as to infringe the registered trademarks of the plaintiff or pass off the same, till the pendency of the present suit,” the Court ordered..Justice Chawla was dealing with a suit filed by one Preetendra Singh Aulakh. The plaintiff said that he has been engaged in the business of selling edible oils, raw and unprocessed agricultural, horticultural products as well as fresh fruits and vegetables through his family since the 1970s. He said that his firm started using the mark ‘Monsoon Harvest Farms’ and the device mark with the same name in November 2006.On the other hand, the defendant said that it has been making millet-based nutrition bars, cookies, muesli, granola, breakfast cereals, nut bars, granola bars, energy bars, snack bars and confectionery under the ‘Monsoon Harvest’ marks since the year 2015.They further argued that the company has now adopted a new mark, that is, ‘Wingreens Monsoon Harvest’, which creates an even-wider difference between the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant and, therefore, there exists no question of either infringement or passing off..After considering the case, the bench held that mere addition of the word ‘Wingreens’ is not sufficient to distinguish the same on application of the test of an unwary purchaser of an average intelligence with an imperfect recollection.“The goods of the plaintiff and the defendant are similar and allied as they are food items which are sold over the counter and the attempt to distinguish them on one being processed and the other being unprocessed appears to be artificial,” the Court held.It, therefore, concluded that the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour and hence, passed an order of interim injunction..Senior Advocate Chander M Lall along with advocates Nancy Roy, Prakriti Varshney, Aastha Kakkar, Prashant, Ananya Chugh, and Nida Khananan appeared for the plaintiffs.Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta along with advocates Sidhant Goel, Mohit Goel, Abhishek Kotnala, Karmanya Dev Sharma PDV Srikar appeared for the defendants. .[Read Order]