Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. Swastik Organics & Ors.: A Complete Analysis of Counterfeit in Click Economy

Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. Swastik Organics & Ors.: A Complete Analysis of Counterfeit in Click Economy  . The Delhi High Court’s order dated December 23 2025, in I.A. 32346/2025 (CS(COMM) 1393/2025), represents a significant judicial intervention in the protection of well-known trademarks and brand identities in India’s competitive food industry. This case involves Britannia Industries Ltd., one of India’s most trusted food manufacturers, seeking protection against defendants who allegedly infringed upon its iconic “Little Hearts” trademark and 3D shape mark by selling counterfeit biscuits through e-commerce platforms, specifically Amazon.
The case shows the modern challenges faced by established brands in the digital marketplace, where unauthorized sellers can easily use e-commerce platforms to distribute counterfeit products that capitalize on the goodwill and reputation carefully built by real trademark owners over decades. The court’s decision to grant an ad interim injunction upholds the judiciary’s commitment to protecting intellectual property rights and preventing consumer deception in an increasingly digitalized commercial landscape.
Britannia Industries Ltd. stands as a towering presence in India’s food industry, with a legacy spanning over a century since its establishment in 1918. The company has evolved from its modest beginnings into a food conglomerate with impressive financial credentials, reporting revenues exceeding Rs. 17,942 crores until March 31, 2025. This remarkable financial performance reflects not merely commercial success but also the deep trust and loyalty that Indian consumers have reposed in the Britannia brand across multiple generations.
The company’s product portfolio extends across various categories of bakery products, dairy items, and snacks, but it is perhaps in the biscuit segment that Britannia has achieved its most iconic status. The brand name itself has become virtually synonymous with quality biscuits in the Indian market, achieving a level of market penetration and consumer recognition that few brands can claim.
In 1988, Britannia made a strategic decision that would prove transformative for its brand identity by adopting the “Little Hearts” mark. This was followed in 1993 by the launch of a unique sugar-coated, heart-shaped biscuit that would capture the imagination and taste preferences of millions of Indian consumers. The distinctive heart shape was not merely an aesthetic choice but a deliberate branding strategy that created immediate visual recognition and emotional connection with consumers.
The success of “Little Hearts” can be attributed to several factors. First, the product filled a specific niche in the market for sweet, indulgent snacks that could be marketed toward children and young adults. Second, the distinctive heart shape made the product instantly recognizable and difficult to confuse with other biscuits. Third, Britannia’s extensive distribution network and marketing power ensured that “Little Hearts” achieved nationwide availability and visibility.
Recognizing the commercial value of its innovations, Britannia has invested substantially in protecting its intellectual property. The company holds trademark registration no. 5341989 in Class 30 for the “Little Hearts” mark, dated February 23, 2022, with user claim dating back to May 22, 1993. This trademark registration provides Britannia with statutory rights to exclude others from using identical or deceptively similar marks in relation to biscuits and related food products.
Beyond the word mark, Britannia has also secured protection for the three-dimensional shape mark of the heart-shaped biscuit itself, bearing TM no. 4274917, dated August 26, 2019, with claimed use since May 22, 1993. This 3D shape mark is particularly significant as it protects the distinctive product configuration that has become synonymous with “Little Hearts” in the consumer’s mind. 
Additionally, Britannia holds multiple other registrations for marks comprising “Little Hearts” and variations thereof, as well as registrations covering packaging and trade dress elements. This complete intellectual property strategy creates multiple layers of protection against potential infringers. The product’s availability through various third-party e-commerce websites has expanded its reach beyond traditional brick-and-mortar retail, making it accessible to consumers across India’s diverse geographic and demographic landscape.
The brand has achieved “acquired distinctiveness” or “secondary meaning,” the point at which a mark or product feature becomes so strongly associated with a particular source in the minds of consumers that it functions as a reliable indicator of origin. This level of brand recognition is precisely what makes “Little Hearts” an asset worth protecting and what makes it an attractive target for counterfeiters looking to free ride on Britannia’s reputation.
Background of the Case
In December 2025, Britannia’s market intelligence and brand protection teams discovered a disturbing development: counterfeit “Little Hearts Biscuits” were being sold on Amazon’s e-commerce platform by sellers operating under various business names. The discovery of these infringing products likely resulted from routine market surveillance activities that large brand owners conduct to identify and combat counterfeiting.
The impugned products bore the trademark “Little Hearts” and utilized a heart-shaped 3D configuration virtually identical to Britannia’s registered marks. What made this infringement particularly egregious was that the defendants were not merely using similar marks but were explicitly referencing “Britannia Little Hearts” in their product listings and reproducing images in which Britannia held copyright, including distinctive packaging featuring the “trademark gold and red pack” that had become synonymous with the authentic product.
The defendants used the identical mark “Little Hearts” in commerce, creating direct trademark infringement under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The defendants adopted a heart-shaped biscuit configuration identical to Britannia’s registered 3D shape mark, constituting infringement of the shape mark. By using Britannia’s marks and trade dress, the defendants were representing their products as originating from or being associated with Britannia, thereby committing the common law tort of passing off.
The defendants reproduced images and packaging elements in which Britannia held copyright, adding an additional layer of intellectual property violation. The defendants’ conduct constituted unfair competition by free riding on Britannia’s goodwill and misleading consumers about the origin of the products.
Arguments Presented by the Plaintiff 
Britannia’s case before the Delhi High Court was complete, presenting both statutory and equitable grounds for relief. Britannia emphasized its position as the prior user, adopter, and registered owner of the “Little Hearts” trademark and the heart-shaped 3D configuration. The company traced its use of these marks back to 1988 for the word mark and 1993 for the specific product configuration, demonstrating decades of continuous use. This extensive history of use is crucial in trademark law, as it establishes both legal rights through registration and equitable rights through common law use.
The plaintiff highlighted the substantial investments made in developing, marketing, and promoting the “Little Hearts” brand over more than three decades. These investments included product development costs, advertising expenditures, quality control measures, and distribution infrastructure all of which contributed to building the substantial goodwill now associated with the mark.
Britannia advanced a particularly strong argument based on what the court termed “triple identity”: the marks were virtually identical, the products were identical, and the trade channels were identical. This convergence of identity factors created an irrebuttable presumption of likelihood of confusion.
The plaintiff argued that to an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the standard test in trademark infringement cases the defendants’ products would be indistinguishable from genuine Britannia “Little Hearts” biscuits. Consumers shopping on e-commerce platforms often make quick purchasing decisions based on product images and descriptions, making them particularly vulnerable to deception when confronted with counterfeit products that closely mimic authentic ones.
Britannia contended that the defendants’ adoption of the identical mark and shape was neither coincidental nor innocent. The calculated nature of the infringement was evidenced by several factors, such as the product listings on Amazon, the defendants explicitly mentioned “Britannia Little Hearts,” indicating knowledge of the genuine product and an intentional effort to associate their counterfeit goods with Britannia’s reputation. The defendants reproduced the gold and red packaging that had become distinctive of Britannia’s “Little Hearts” products, demonstrating an effort to create complete visual similarity.
The defendants did not merely use similar packaging but actually reproduced Britannia’s own product photographs, suggesting access to and deliberate copying of Britannia’s marketing materials. These factors, Britannia argued, demonstrated a calculated attempt to mislead consumers into believing that the counterfeit products were manufactured by or associated with Britannia, constituting dishonest adoption with intent to deceive.
Britannia emphasized the irreparable nature of the harm it would suffer if interim relief were not granted. This harm included, every sale of a counterfeit product diminishes the distinctiveness and exclusivity of the genuine mark, diluting its value as a source identifier. If consumers purchase counterfeit products believing them to be genuine Britannia products and are dissatisfied with their quality, this negative experience would be attributed to Britannia, damaging its reputation. The fundamental harm to consumers who were being misled into purchasing counterfeit products believing them to be genuine, violating their right to authentic products and informed choice. The diffuse nature of reputational harm makes it extremely difficult to quantify in monetary terms, rendering damages an inadequate remedy and necessitating injunctive relief.
Britannia argued that the balance of convenience lay decidedly in its favor. While an injunction would prevent the defendants from selling counterfeit products an activity to which they had no legitimate right failure to grant an injunction would allow continued infringement, causing ongoing and irreparable harm to Britannia’s valuable intellectual property rights.
The plaintiff contended that defendants who deliberately adopt another’s trademarks have no legitimate business interests deserving of protection. Allowing such infringement to continue would reward dishonest commercial conduct and undermine the entire trademark system designed to protect both brand owners and consumers.
Observations Made by the Court 
The Delhi High Court, after hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff and perusing the record, made several important observations that formed the foundation of its decision to grant interim relief. Britannia’s registered trademarks for “Little Hearts” and the heart-shaped 3D configuration provided statutory rights that were being violated. The comparison chart presented by the plaintiff demonstrated striking similarity between the genuine and impugned products, leaving little doubt about the infringing nature of the defendants’ conduct.
The defendants’ explicit reference to “Britannia Little Hearts” in their product listings, combined with reproduction of distinctive packaging and copyrighted images, indicated deliberate copying with intent to mislead consumers. The court observed that the defendants’ product listing on Amazon, which expressly referred to “Britannia Little Hearts” and displayed the gold and red packaging, constituted “admission as well as a clear and deliberate act of dishonest adoption.” This finding is particularly damning because it characterizes the defendants’ conduct not as an innocent or negligent mistake but as a calculated commercial fraud.
The reproduction of images in which the plaintiff held copyright further substantiated the dishonest intention, as it demonstrated that the defendants had actively copied Britannia’s marketing materials rather than creating their own legitimate product identity.
The court found that the defendants’ adoption of an identical mark and shape, despite having knowledge that Britannia was the prior user, constituted a calculated attempt to mislead consumers. This finding of mala fide intent is significant because it impacts both the availability of remedies and the severity with which courts view the conduct. The court noted that this was “bound to cause confusion among the relevant consumers” and represented “a calculated attempt to mislead the consumer into believing that the impugned products are manufactured or associated with the Plaintiff.” This consumer protection rationale reinforces that trademark law serves dual purposes, protecting brand owners and protecting consumers from deception.
The court explicitly adopted this is a case to be triple identity where the marks are virtually identical, the products are identical, and the trade channel, as well as the consumer base, is identical.” This analytical framework is derived from established trademark jurisprudence that recognizes different levels of protection based on the relationship between the marks, goods, and trade channels involved. When all three elements are identical, the likelihood of confusion is at its highest, and the case for protection is at its strongest.
The court emphasized that “the Plaintiff, being the prior user, adopter, and the registered owner of the trademark/shape ‘Little Hearts/ [heart shape]’ mark, is entitled to protection.” This statement recognizes both the statutory rights flowing from trademark registration and the common law rights acquired through prior use.
The principle that prior users deserve protection is fundamental to trademark law’s goal of preventing consumer confusion and protecting investments in brand development. Allowing later users to adopt identical marks would undermine these core purposes.
The court specifically addressed the consumer perspective, noting that “to an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the marks are likely to appear identical, thereby leading the consumers to associate the infringing Defendants’ business with that of the Plaintiff.” This standard, the “unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection” is the established test in Indian trademark law for assessing likelihood of confusion. It recognizes that consumers do not perform detailed side-by-side comparisons but rely on general impressions and imperfect memories when making purchasing decisions.
The court was satisfied that “if an ad interim injunction is not granted at this stage, irreparable harm/injury would be caused to the Plaintiff.” This finding encompasses both the immediate financial losses from lost sales and the longer-term reputational damage that would be difficult or impossible to remedy through monetary compensation.
The court also concluded that “balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff, and against Defendant Nos. 1 to 4.” This balancing test recognizes that interim injunctions involve competing interests, but when one party is engaged in clear infringement with no legitimate rights, the balance decidedly favors the trademark owner.
The Courts Direction and Relief Granted 
Based on its findings, the hon’ble Judge Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, provides comprehensive interim direction designed to immediately halt the infringement and preserve Britannia’s rights pending final adjudication.
Restraint Against Defendants Nos. 1 to 4. The court restrained Defendants Nos. 1 to 4, along with their partners, principals, proprietors, directors, officers, employees, agents, distributors, franchisees, suppliers, licensees, affiliates, subsidiaries, representatives, group companies, and assignees from:
Using, manufacturing, selling, marketing, and advertising any goods bearing the impugned mark/shape “Little Hearts/[heart shape]” or any other trademark/shape or name identical and/or similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks.
This broad formulation ensures that the defendants cannot circumvent the injunction through minor variations or by operating through affiliated entities. The inclusion of various categories of related parties recognizes that modern commercial operations often involve multiple entities and ensures comprehensive protection.
The defendants were also prohibited from dealing in images or photographs in which the Plaintiff holds copyright “in any manner whatsoever.” This provision addresses the copyright infringement aspect of the case and prevents the defendants from continuing to use Britannia’s marketing materials to promote counterfeit products.
Recognizing Amazon’s role as the platform facilitating the sale of counterfeit products, the court directed Amazon to “delist/take down all the impugned products of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 bearing the impugned mark/shape, which is listed on its platform.” This direction is significant as it acknowledges that e-commerce platforms have both the technical capability and a responsibility to remove infringing listings when brought to their attention through proper legal channels. Platform liability in intellectual property cases has become increasingly important as e-commerce has grown, and courts have recognized that meaningful relief often requires platform cooperation.
The court ordered that notice be issued to the defendants through all permissible modes upon filing of process fees, returnable on the next date of hearing. The court further directed compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC within one week, which requires the plaintiff to file an undertaking to compensate defendants for any damages suffered if the injunction is ultimately found to have been wrongly granted.
The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on February 10, 2026, and before the court on May 21, 2026, ensuring timely progress toward final resolution while allowing the interim protections to remain in place.
Supporting Legal Precedents 
While the court order does not explicitly cite case law, the principles applied are well-established in Indian trademark jurisprudence. Several landmark cases support the court’s analysis and decision:\
Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142
This Supreme Court judgment established fundamental principles regarding passing off and the protection of distinctive marks. The Court held that the test for passing off is whether the defendant’s mark is likely to deceive an unwary purchaser with average intelligence and imperfect recollection. This standard was implicitly applied in the present case when the court assessed the likelihood of consumer confusion.
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980
The Supreme Court in this case established that in trademark infringement cases, the court must consider the overall impression created by the marks rather than conducting a minute comparison. The Court emphasized that marks should be compared as a whole, considering their visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities. The identical nature of the marks in the present case made this analysis straightforward.
Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73
This landmark judgment established a complete framework for assessing likelihood of confusion in trademark cases. The Supreme Court identified various factors to be considered, including the nature of the marks, similarity between the marks, nature of goods, similarity of goods, nature of purchase, and the degree of care likely to be exercised by customers. In the present case, the triple identity of marks, goods, and trade channels created the highest risk scenario identified in Cadila.
Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 145
The Supreme Court in this case recognized the importance of protecting domain names and internet-based trademark rights, establishing principles relevant to e-commerce trademark infringement. The Court emphasized that trademark protection extends to online markets, a principle clearly applicable to the present case involving Amazon’s platform.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd., (2014) 13 SCC 647
This case addressed trade dress protection and the requirements for establishing distinctiveness of product configuration and packaging. The Supreme Court held that once distinctiveness is established, trade dress receives strong protection against imitation. Britannia’s registered shape mark and distinctive packaging receive similar protection in the present case.
Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 147
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of mala fide adoption of trademarks, holding that when adoption is dishonest and with knowledge of another’s prior use, courts should grant injunctive relief. The present court’s finding of deliberate dishonesty aligns with this precedent.
Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd., (1990) Supp SCC 727
This judgment established the principles for granting interim injunctions in intellectual property cases, articulating the three-fold test: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The present court explicitly applied this framework in reaching its decision.
Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 4 SCC 758
The Supreme Court in this case addressed the issue of trade dress and packaging infringement, holding that deliberate imitation of distinctive packaging with intent to deceive is actionable. The reproduction of Britannia’s gold and red packaging falls squarely within this principle.
S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683
This case addressed the concept of “triple identity” in trademark law when marks, goods, and trade channels are all identical. The Supreme Court held that such cases present the strongest claims for protection, as applied by the Delhi High Court in the present matter.
Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited, 2004 (29) PTC 1 (Del)
The Delhi High Court in this case emphasized that in cases of deliberate copying and passing off, interim injunctions should be readily granted to prevent continuing harm to the plaintiff’s goodwill. This approach is reflected in the present court’s swift grant of interim relief.
Relevant Legal Provisions 
Trademarks Act, 1999
Section 28 - Rights conferred by registration: Provides that registration gives the proprietor exclusive rights to use the mark in relation to goods or services for which it is registered, and to obtain relief in case of infringement.
Section 29 - Infringement of registered trademarks: Defines various acts constituting infringement, including use of identical or deceptively similar marks in relation to identical or similar goods, which is directly applicable to this case.
Section 124 - Relief in suits for infringement or for passing off: Empowers courts to grant injunctions, damages, accounts of profits, and other remedies in trademark infringement cases.
Copyright Act, 1957
Section 51: Defines copyright infringement, including reproducing copyrighted works without authorization, which is relevant to the defendants’ unauthorized use of Britannia’s product images.
Section 55: Provides for civil remedies for copyright infringement, including injunctions and damages.
Conclusion 
The Delhi High Court’s order in Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Swastik Organics & Ors. represents a robust application of established trademark law principles to combat counterfeiting in the e-commerce era. The case exemplifies several important themes in contemporary intellectual property jurisprudence.
First, the decision reaffirms that well-established brands with registered trademarks and significant market presence receive strong protection against deliberate copying. Britannia’s decades of investment in building the “Little Hearts” brand, coupled with its comprehensive intellectual property portfolio, provided a solid foundation for judicial intervention.
Second, the case demonstrates judicial recognition of the unique challenges posed by e-commerce platforms in trademark enforcement. By directing Amazon to delist infringing products, the court acknowledged that effective relief in modern trademark cases often requires platform cooperation. This approach reflects an emerging consensus that e-commerce platforms have responsibilities in addressing intellectual property violations occurring through their services.
Third, the court’s emphasis on consumer protection reinforces that trademark law serves dual purposes, protecting brand owners’ investments and preventing consumer deception. The finding that unwary consumers would likely be confused by the identical marks and products underscores this consumer protection rationale.
Fourth, the application of the “triple identity” framework provides clear doctrinal guidance for analyzing trademark infringement cases. When marks, products, and trade channels are all identical, the case for protection is compelling, and courts should not hesitate to grant interim relief.
Fifth, the court’s finding of mala fide intent and deliberate dishonesty sends a strong message that calculated trademark infringement will be met with swift judicial response. The evidence of explicit references to Britannia’s brand name and reproduction of copyrighted images left no doubt about the defendants’ intentions.
The complete nature of the interim relief granted restraining not just the primary defendants but also their various affiliated entities and requiring platform-level delisting ensures meaningful protection for Britannia’s rights pending final adjudication.
For brand owners, the case reinforces the importance of comprehensive intellectual property protection strategies, including registration of not just word marks but also shape marks, trade dress, and copyrights in marketing materials. It also underscores the need for active market surveillance to identify and address infringement promptly.
For e-commerce platforms, the case highlights the expectation that they will cooperate in removing infringing listings when presented with credible evidence through proper legal channels. Platforms that facilitate counterfeiting may find themselves named as defendants and subject to court orders requiring them to take corrective action.
The Delhi High Court’s decision in this matter serves the fundamental purposes of trademark law, protecting the investments of legitimate brand owners, preventing consumer confusion and deception, and maintaining the integrity of the marketplace. As counterfeiting evolves with technology, judicial vigilance in protecting established trademarks becomes ever more critical to preserving both commercial fairness and consumer welfare.
The case awaits final adjudication, but the strong interim relief granted provides Britannia with immediate protection while sending a clear signal to would-be infringers that deliberate copying of established trademarks will not be tolerated by Indian courts. This approach maintains India’s commitment to robust intellectual property protection, which is essential for fostering innovation, protecting consumer interests, and maintaining the country’s attractiveness as a destination for legitimate commercial investment.
Frequently Asked Questions 
Q1. What was the core dispute in Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Swastik Organics & Ors.?
Ans. The dispute arose from the defendants selling counterfeit “Little Hearts” biscuits on Amazon by using Britannia’s registered trademark, 3D heart-shaped configuration, packaging, and copyrighted product images, thereby committing trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement, and unfair competition.  
Q2. Why is the “Little Hearts” mark legally significant?
Ans. “Little Hearts” is a long-standing and highly distinctive brand of Britannia, adopted in 1988 with continuous use since 1993. It enjoys statutory protection through trademark registration and has acquired strong secondary meaning in the Indian market.  
Q3. What made this a strong case of trademark infringement?
Ans. This case involved triple identity identical marks, identical goods (biscuits), and identical trade channels (e-commerce). Under trademark jurisprudence, such cases create the highest likelihood of consumer confusion.  
Q4. How did the defendants attempt to mislead consumers?
Ans. They used the identical “Little Hearts” mark, copied Britannia’s heart-shaped biscuit design, reproduced the gold-red packaging, and even used Britannia’s own product photographs while listing the product as “Britannia Little Hearts” on Amazon.  
Q5. What role did Amazon play in the litigation?
Ans. Amazon was directed by the court to delist all infringing products, recognizing that meaningful trademark enforcement in the digital era requires cooperation from e-commerce platforms facilitating such sales.  
Q6. On what legal grounds was the injunction granted?
Ans. The court found, A strong prima facie case, Irreparable injury to Britannia’s goodwill,
Balance of convenience in Britannia’s favour, satisfying the standard test for interim injunctions under Indian IP law.  
Q7. Why did the court consider the defendants’ conduct dishonest and mala fide?
Ans. Because the defendants had clear knowledge of Britannia’s brand and still deliberately copied its mark, shape, packaging, and marketing images, showing calculated intent to deceive consumers.  
Q8. How does this judgment strengthen trademark enforcement in the e-commerce era?
Ans. The ruling extends trademark protection beyond traditional marketplaces by directly binding e-commerce intermediaries. It confirms that courts can issue platform-level takedown orders, recognizing that online marketplaces are not passive spaces but powerful commercial gateways that must prevent ongoing infringement once notified.  
Q9. Why is the doctrine of “triple identity” pivotal to the court’s reasoning?
Ans. The doctrine removes the need for complex confusion analysis because when marks, products, and trade channels are identical, confusion is legally presumed. This significantly lowers the plaintiff’s evidentiary burden and accelerates judicial relief in clear counterfeiting cases.  
Q10. What does this case reveal about the evolving purpose of trademark law in India?
Ans. The judgment reaffirms that trademark law today protects not just brand owners’ commercial interests but also consumer trust, market integrity, and digital commerce reliability, positioning IP enforcement as a cornerstone of modern economic governance.

The Delhi High Court’s order dated December 23 2025, in I.A. 32346/2025 (CS(COMM) 1393/2025), represents a significant judicial intervention in the protection of well-known trademarks and brand identities in India’s competitive food industry. This case involves Britannia Industries Ltd., one of India’s most trusted food manufacturers, seeking protection against defendants who allegedly infringed upon its iconic “Little Hearts” trademark and 3D shape mark by selling counterfeit biscuits through e-commerce platforms, specifically Amazon.

The case shows the modern challenges faced by established brands in the digital marketplace, where unauthorized sellers can easily use e-commerce platforms to distribute counterfeit products that capitalize on the goodwill and reputation carefully built by real trademark owners over decades. The court’s decision to grant an ad interim injunction upholds the judiciary’s commitment to protecting intellectual property rights and preventing consumer deception in an increasingly digitalized commercial landscape.

Britannia Industries Ltd. stands as a towering presence in India’s food industry, with a legacy spanning over a century since its establishment in 1918. The company has evolved from its modest beginnings into a food conglomerate with impressive financial credentials, reporting revenues exceeding Rs. 17,942 crores until March 31, 2025. This remarkable financial performance reflects not merely commercial success but also the deep trust and loyalty that Indian consumers have reposed in the Britannia brand across multiple generations.

The company’s product portfolio extends across various categories of bakery products, dairy items, and snacks, but it is perhaps in the biscuit segment that Britannia has achieved its most iconic status. The brand name itself has become virtually synonymous with quality biscuits in the Indian market, achieving a level of market penetration and consumer recognition that few brands can claim.

In 1988, Britannia made a strategic decision that would prove transformative for its brand identity by adopting the “Little Hearts” mark. This was followed in 1993 by the launch of a unique sugar-coated, heart-shaped biscuit that would capture the imagination and taste preferences of millions of Indian consumers. The distinctive heart shape was not merely an aesthetic choice but a deliberate branding strategy that created immediate visual recognition and emotional connection with consumers.

The success of “Little Hearts” can be attributed to several factors. First, the product filled a specific niche in the market for sweet, indulgent snacks that could be marketed toward children and young adults. Second, the distinctive heart shape made the product instantly recognizable and difficult to confuse with other biscuits. Third, Britannia’s extensive distribution network and marketing power ensured that “Little Hearts” achieved nationwide availability and visibility.

Recognizing the commercial value of its innovations, Britannia has invested substantially in protecting its intellectual property. The company holds trademark registration no. 5341989 in Class 30 for the “Little Hearts” mark, dated February 23, 2022, with user claim dating back to May 22, 1993. This trademark registration provides Britannia with statutory rights to exclude others from using identical or deceptively similar marks in relation to biscuits and related food products.

Beyond the word mark, Britannia has also secured protection for the three-dimensional shape mark of the heart-shaped biscuit itself, bearing TM no. 4274917, dated August 26, 2019, with claimed use since May 22, 1993. This 3D shape mark is particularly significant as it protects the distinctive product configuration that has become synonymous with “Little Hearts” in the consumer’s mind.

Additionally, Britannia holds multiple other registrations for marks comprising “Little Hearts” and variations thereof, as well as registrations covering packaging and trade dress elements. This complete intellectual property strategy creates multiple layers of protection against potential infringers. The product’s availability through various third-party e-commerce websites has expanded its reach beyond traditional brick-and-mortar retail, making it accessible to consumers across India’s diverse geographic and demographic landscape.

The brand has achieved “acquired distinctiveness” or “secondary meaning,” the point at which a mark or product feature becomes so strongly associated with a particular source in the minds of consumers that it functions as a reliable indicator of origin. This level of brand recognition is precisely what makes “Little Hearts” an asset worth protecting and what makes it an attractive target for counterfeiters looking to free ride on Britannia’s reputation.

Background of the Case

In December 2025, Britannia’s market intelligence and brand protection teams discovered a disturbing development: counterfeit “Little Hearts Biscuits” were being sold on Amazon’s e-commerce platform by sellers operating under various business names. The discovery of these infringing products likely resulted from routine market surveillance activities that large brand owners conduct to identify and combat counterfeiting.

The impugned products bore the trademark “Little Hearts” and utilized a heart-shaped 3D configuration virtually identical to Britannia’s registered marks. What made this infringement particularly egregious was that the defendants were not merely using similar marks but were explicitly referencing “Britannia Little Hearts” in their product listings and reproducing images in which Britannia held copyright, including distinctive packaging featuring the “trademark gold and red pack” that had become synonymous with the authentic product.

The defendants used the identical mark “Little Hearts” in commerce, creating direct trademark infringement under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The defendants adopted a heart-shaped biscuit configuration identical to Britannia’s registered 3D shape mark, constituting infringement of the shape mark. By using Britannia’s marks and trade dress, the defendants were representing their products as originating from or being associated with Britannia, thereby committing the common law tort of passing off.

The defendants reproduced images and packaging elements in which Britannia held copyright, adding an additional layer of intellectual property violation. The defendants’ conduct constituted unfair competition by free riding on Britannia’s goodwill and misleading consumers about the origin of the products.

Arguments Presented by the Plaintiff

Britannia’s case before the Delhi High Court was complete, presenting both statutory and equitable grounds for relief. Britannia emphasized its position as the prior user, adopter, and registered owner of the “Little Hearts” trademark and the heart-shaped 3D configuration. The company traced its use of these marks back to 1988 for the word mark and 1993 for the specific product configuration, demonstrating decades of continuous use. This extensive history of use is crucial in trademark law, as it establishes both legal rights through registration and equitable rights through common law use.

The plaintiff highlighted the substantial investments made in developing, marketing, and promoting the “Little Hearts” brand over more than three decades. These investments included product development costs, advertising expenditures, quality control measures, and distribution infrastructure all of which contributed to building the substantial goodwill now associated with the mark.

Britannia advanced a particularly strong argument based on what the court termed “triple identity”: the marks were virtually identical, the products were identical, and the trade channels were identical. This convergence of identity factors created an irrebuttable presumption of likelihood of confusion.

The plaintiff argued that to an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the standard test in trademark infringement cases the defendants’ products would be indistinguishable from genuine Britannia “Little Hearts” biscuits. Consumers shopping on e-commerce platforms often make quick purchasing decisions based on product images and descriptions, making them particularly vulnerable to deception when confronted with counterfeit products that closely mimic authentic ones.

Britannia contended that the defendants’ adoption of the identical mark and shape was neither coincidental nor innocent. The calculated nature of the infringement was evidenced by several factors, such as the product listings on Amazon, the defendants explicitly mentioned “Britannia Little Hearts,” indicating knowledge of the genuine product and an intentional effort to associate their counterfeit goods with Britannia’s reputation. The defendants reproduced the gold and red packaging that had become distinctive of Britannia’s “Little Hearts” products, demonstrating an effort to create complete visual similarity.

The defendants did not merely use similar packaging but actually reproduced Britannia’s own product photographs, suggesting access to and deliberate copying of Britannia’s marketing materials. These factors, Britannia argued, demonstrated a calculated attempt to mislead consumers into believing that the counterfeit products were manufactured by or associated with Britannia, constituting dishonest adoption with intent to deceive.

Britannia emphasized the irreparable nature of the harm it would suffer if interim relief were not granted. This harm included, every sale of a counterfeit product diminishes the distinctiveness and exclusivity of the genuine mark, diluting its value as a source identifier. If consumers purchase counterfeit products believing them to be genuine Britannia products and are dissatisfied with their quality, this negative experience would be attributed to Britannia, damaging its reputation. The fundamental harm to consumers who were being misled into purchasing counterfeit products believing them to be genuine, violating their right to authentic products and informed choice. The diffuse nature of reputational harm makes it extremely difficult to quantify in monetary terms, rendering damages an inadequate remedy and necessitating injunctive relief.

Britannia argued that the balance of convenience lay decidedly in its favor. While an injunction would prevent the defendants from selling counterfeit products an activity to which they had no legitimate right failure to grant an injunction would allow continued infringement, causing ongoing and irreparable harm to Britannia’s valuable intellectual property rights.

The plaintiff contended that defendants who deliberately adopt another’s trademarks have no legitimate business interests deserving of protection. Allowing such infringement to continue would reward dishonest commercial conduct and undermine the entire trademark system designed to protect both brand owners and consumers.

Observations Made by the Court

The Delhi High Court, after hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff and perusing the record, made several important observations that formed the foundation of its decision to grant interim relief. Britannia’s registered trademarks for “Little Hearts” and the heart-shaped 3D configuration provided statutory rights that were being violated. The comparison chart presented by the plaintiff demonstrated striking similarity between the genuine and impugned products, leaving little doubt about the infringing nature of the defendants’ conduct.

The defendants’ explicit reference to “Britannia Little Hearts” in their product listings, combined with reproduction of distinctive packaging and copyrighted images, indicated deliberate copying with intent to mislead consumers. The court observed that the defendants’ product listing on Amazon, which expressly referred to “Britannia Little Hearts” and displayed the gold and red packaging, constituted “admission as well as a clear and deliberate act of dishonest adoption.” This finding is particularly damning because it characterizes the defendants’ conduct not as an innocent or negligent mistake but as a calculated commercial fraud.

The reproduction of images in which the plaintiff held copyright further substantiated the dishonest intention, as it demonstrated that the defendants had actively copied Britannia’s marketing materials rather than creating their own legitimate product identity.

The court found that the defendants’ adoption of an identical mark and shape, despite having knowledge that Britannia was the prior user, constituted a calculated attempt to mislead consumers. This finding of mala fide intent is significant because it impacts both the availability of remedies and the severity with which courts view the conduct. The court noted that this was “bound to cause confusion among the relevant consumers” and represented “a calculated attempt to mislead the consumer into believing that the impugned products are manufactured or associated with the Plaintiff.” This consumer protection rationale reinforces that trademark law serves dual purposes, protecting brand owners and protecting consumers from deception.

The court explicitly adopted this is a case to be triple identity where the marks are virtually identical, the products are identical, and the trade channel, as well as the consumer base, is identical.” This analytical framework is derived from established trademark jurisprudence that recognizes different levels of protection based on the relationship between the marks, goods, and trade channels involved. When all three elements are identical, the likelihood of confusion is at its highest, and the case for protection is at its strongest.

The court emphasized that “the Plaintiff, being the prior user, adopter, and the registered owner of the trademark/shape ‘Little Hearts/ [heart shape]’ mark, is entitled to protection.” This statement recognizes both the statutory rights flowing from trademark registration and the common law rights acquired through prior use.

The principle that prior users deserve protection is fundamental to trademark law’s goal of preventing consumer confusion and protecting investments in brand development. Allowing later users to adopt identical marks would undermine these core purposes.

The court specifically addressed the consumer perspective, noting that “to an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the marks are likely to appear identical, thereby leading the consumers to associate the infringing Defendants’ business with that of the Plaintiff.” This standard, the “unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection” is the established test in Indian trademark law for assessing likelihood of confusion. It recognizes that consumers do not perform detailed side-by-side comparisons but rely on general impressions and imperfect memories when making purchasing decisions.

The court was satisfied that “if an ad interim injunction is not granted at this stage, irreparable harm/injury would be caused to the Plaintiff.” This finding encompasses both the immediate financial losses from lost sales and the longer-term reputational damage that would be difficult or impossible to remedy through monetary compensation.

The court also concluded that “balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff, and against Defendant Nos. 1 to 4.” This balancing test recognizes that interim injunctions involve competing interests, but when one party is engaged in clear infringement with no legitimate rights, the balance decidedly favors the trademark owner.

The Courts Direction and Relief Granted

Based on its findings, the hon’ble Judge Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, provides comprehensive interim direction designed to immediately halt the infringement and preserve Britannia’s rights pending final adjudication.

Restraint Against Defendants Nos. 1 to 4. The court restrained Defendants Nos. 1 to 4, along with their partners, principals, proprietors, directors, officers, employees, agents, distributors, franchisees, suppliers, licensees, affiliates, subsidiaries, representatives, group companies, and assignees from:

Using, manufacturing, selling, marketing, and advertising any goods bearing the impugned mark/shape “Little Hearts/[heart shape]” or any other trademark/shape or name identical and/or similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks.

This broad formulation ensures that the defendants cannot circumvent the injunction through minor variations or by operating through affiliated entities. The inclusion of various categories of related parties recognizes that modern commercial operations often involve multiple entities and ensures comprehensive protection.

The defendants were also prohibited from dealing in images or photographs in which the Plaintiff holds copyright “in any manner whatsoever.” This provision addresses the copyright infringement aspect of the case and prevents the defendants from continuing to use Britannia’s marketing materials to promote counterfeit products.

Recognizing Amazon’s role as the platform facilitating the sale of counterfeit products, the court directed Amazon to “delist/take down all the impugned products of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 bearing the impugned mark/shape, which is listed on its platform.” This direction is significant as it acknowledges that e-commerce platforms have both the technical capability and a responsibility to remove infringing listings when brought to their attention through proper legal channels. Platform liability in intellectual property cases has become increasingly important as e-commerce has grown, and courts have recognized that meaningful relief often requires platform cooperation.

The court ordered that notice be issued to the defendants through all permissible modes upon filing of process fees, returnable on the next date of hearing. The court further directed compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC within one week, which requires the plaintiff to file an undertaking to compensate defendants for any damages suffered if the injunction is ultimately found to have been wrongly granted.

The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on February 10, 2026, and before the court on May 21, 2026, ensuring timely progress toward final resolution while allowing the interim protections to remain in place.

Supporting Legal Precedents

While the court order does not explicitly cite case law, the principles applied are well-established in Indian trademark jurisprudence. Several landmark cases support the court’s analysis and decision:\

Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142

This Supreme Court judgment established fundamental principles regarding passing off and the protection of distinctive marks. The Court held that the test for passing off is whether the defendant’s mark is likely to deceive an unwary purchaser with average intelligence and imperfect recollection. This standard was implicitly applied in the present case when the court assessed the likelihood of consumer confusion.

Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980

The Supreme Court in this case established that in trademark infringement cases, the court must consider the overall impression created by the marks rather than conducting a minute comparison. The Court emphasized that marks should be compared as a whole, considering their visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities. The identical nature of the marks in the present case made this analysis straightforward.

Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73

This landmark judgment established a complete framework for assessing likelihood of confusion in trademark cases. The Supreme Court identified various factors to be considered, including the nature of the marks, similarity between the marks, nature of goods, similarity of goods, nature of purchase, and the degree of care likely to be exercised by customers. In the present case, the triple identity of marks, goods, and trade channels created the highest risk scenario identified in Cadila.

Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 145

The Supreme Court in this case recognized the importance of protecting domain names and internet-based trademark rights, establishing principles relevant to e-commerce trademark infringement. The Court emphasized that trademark protection extends to online markets, a principle clearly applicable to the present case involving Amazon’s platform.

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd., (2014) 13 SCC 647

This case addressed trade dress protection and the requirements for establishing distinctiveness of product configuration and packaging. The Supreme Court held that once distinctiveness is established, trade dress receives strong protection against imitation. Britannia’s registered shape mark and distinctive packaging receive similar protection in the present case.

Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 147

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of mala fide adoption of trademarks, holding that when adoption is dishonest and with knowledge of another’s prior use, courts should grant injunctive relief. The present court’s finding of deliberate dishonesty aligns with this precedent.

Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd., (1990) Supp SCC 727

This judgment established the principles for granting interim injunctions in intellectual property cases, articulating the three-fold test: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The present court explicitly applied this framework in reaching its decision.

Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 4 SCC 758

The Supreme Court in this case addressed the issue of trade dress and packaging infringement, holding that deliberate imitation of distinctive packaging with intent to deceive is actionable. The reproduction of Britannia’s gold and red packaging falls squarely within this principle.

S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683

This case addressed the concept of “triple identity” in trademark law when marks, goods, and trade channels are all identical. The Supreme Court held that such cases present the strongest claims for protection, as applied by the Delhi High Court in the present matter.

Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited, 2004 (29) PTC 1 (Del)

The Delhi High Court in this case emphasized that in cases of deliberate copying and passing off, interim injunctions should be readily granted to prevent continuing harm to the plaintiff’s goodwill. This approach is reflected in the present court’s swift grant of interim relief.

Relevant Legal Provisions

Trademarks Act, 1999

Section 28 - Rights conferred by registration: Provides that registration gives the proprietor exclusive rights to use the mark in relation to goods or services for which it is registered, and to obtain relief in case of infringement.

Section 29 - Infringement of registered trademarks: Defines various acts constituting infringement, including use of identical or deceptively similar marks in relation to identical or similar goods, which is directly applicable to this case.

Section 124 - Relief in suits for infringement or for passing off: Empowers courts to grant injunctions, damages, accounts of profits, and other remedies in trademark infringement cases.

Copyright Act, 1957

Section 51: Defines copyright infringement, including reproducing copyrighted works without authorization, which is relevant to the defendants’ unauthorized use of Britannia’s product images.

Section 55: Provides for civil remedies for copyright infringement, including injunctions and damages.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s order in Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Swastik Organics & Ors. represents a robust application of established trademark law principles to combat counterfeiting in the e-commerce era. The case exemplifies several important themes in contemporary intellectual property jurisprudence.

First, the decision reaffirms that well-established brands with registered trademarks and significant market presence receive strong protection against deliberate copying. Britannia’s decades of investment in building the “Little Hearts” brand, coupled with its comprehensive intellectual property portfolio, provided a solid foundation for judicial intervention.

Second, the case demonstrates judicial recognition of the unique challenges posed by e-commerce platforms in trademark enforcement. By directing Amazon to delist infringing products, the court acknowledged that effective relief in modern trademark cases often requires platform cooperation. This approach reflects an emerging consensus that e-commerce platforms have responsibilities in addressing intellectual property violations occurring through their services.

Third, the court’s emphasis on consumer protection reinforces that trademark law serves dual purposes, protecting brand owners’ investments and preventing consumer deception. The finding that unwary consumers would likely be confused by the identical marks and products underscores this consumer protection rationale.

Fourth, the application of the “triple identity” framework provides clear doctrinal guidance for analyzing trademark infringement cases. When marks, products, and trade channels are all identical, the case for protection is compelling, and courts should not hesitate to grant interim relief.

Fifth, the court’s finding of mala fide intent and deliberate dishonesty sends a strong message that calculated trademark infringement will be met with swift judicial response. The evidence of explicit references to Britannia’s brand name and reproduction of copyrighted images left no doubt about the defendants’ intentions.

The complete nature of the interim relief granted restraining not just the primary defendants but also their various affiliated entities and requiring platform-level delisting ensures meaningful protection for Britannia’s rights pending final adjudication.

For brand owners, the case reinforces the importance of comprehensive intellectual property protection strategies, including registration of not just word marks but also shape marks, trade dress, and copyrights in marketing materials. It also underscores the need for active market surveillance to identify and address infringement promptly.

For e-commerce platforms, the case highlights the expectation that they will cooperate in removing infringing listings when presented with credible evidence through proper legal channels. Platforms that facilitate counterfeiting may find themselves named as defendants and subject to court orders requiring them to take corrective action.

The Delhi High Court’s decision in this matter serves the fundamental purposes of trademark law, protecting the investments of legitimate brand owners, preventing consumer confusion and deception, and maintaining the integrity of the marketplace. As counterfeiting evolves with technology, judicial vigilance in protecting established trademarks becomes ever more critical to preserving both commercial fairness and consumer welfare.

The case awaits final adjudication, but the strong interim relief granted provides Britannia with immediate protection while sending a clear signal to would-be infringers that deliberate copying of established trademarks will not be tolerated by Indian courts. This approach maintains India’s commitment to robust intellectual property protection, which is essential for fostering innovation, protecting consumer interests, and maintaining the country’s attractiveness as a destination for legitimate commercial investment.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What was the core dispute in Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Swastik Organics & Ors.?

Ans. The dispute arose from the defendants selling counterfeit “Little Hearts” biscuits on Amazon by using Britannia’s registered trademark, 3D heart-shaped configuration, packaging, and copyrighted product images, thereby committing trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement, and unfair competition.

Q2. Why is the “Little Hearts” mark legally significant?

Ans. “Little Hearts” is a long-standing and highly distinctive brand of Britannia, adopted in 1988 with continuous use since 1993. It enjoys statutory protection through trademark registration and has acquired strong secondary meaning in the Indian market.

Q3. What made this a strong case of trademark infringement?

Ans. This case involved triple identity identical marks, identical goods (biscuits), and identical trade channels (e-commerce). Under trademark jurisprudence, such cases create the highest likelihood of consumer confusion.

Q4. How did the defendants attempt to mislead consumers?

Ans. They used the identical “Little Hearts” mark, copied Britannia’s heart-shaped biscuit design, reproduced the gold-red packaging, and even used Britannia’s own product photographs while listing the product as “Britannia Little Hearts” on Amazon.

Q5. What role did Amazon play in the litigation?

Ans. Amazon was directed by the court to delist all infringing products, recognizing that meaningful trademark enforcement in the digital era requires cooperation from e-commerce platforms facilitating such sales.

Q6. On what legal grounds was the injunction granted?

Ans. The court found, A strong prima facie case, Irreparable injury to Britannia’s goodwill,

Balance of convenience in Britannia’s favour, satisfying the standard test for interim injunctions under Indian IP law.

Q7. Why did the court consider the defendants’ conduct dishonest and mala fide?

Ans. Because the defendants had clear knowledge of Britannia’s brand and still deliberately copied its mark, shape, packaging, and marketing images, showing calculated intent to deceive consumers.

Q8. How does this judgment strengthen trademark enforcement in the e-commerce era?

Ans. The ruling extends trademark protection beyond traditional marketplaces by directly binding e-commerce intermediaries. It confirms that courts can issue platform-level takedown orders, recognizing that online marketplaces are not passive spaces but powerful commercial gateways that must prevent ongoing infringement once notified.

Q9. Why is the doctrine of “triple identity” pivotal to the court’s reasoning?

Ans. The doctrine removes the need for complex confusion analysis because when marks, products, and trade channels are identical, confusion is legally presumed. This significantly lowers the plaintiff’s evidentiary burden and accelerates judicial relief in clear counterfeiting cases.

Q10. What does this case reveal about the evolving purpose of trademark law in India?

Ans. The judgment reaffirms that trademark law today protects not just brand owners’ commercial interests but also consumer trust, market integrity, and digital commerce reliability, positioning IP enforcement as a cornerstone of modern economic governance.