Restraining Order against Defendants in a Sour Candy Fight between ‘Pulse’ and ‘Pluss+’

Ever got confused between two similar looking items? Rushing to a store after spotting an appealing product on a television commercial, subsequently slapped by deception after practically seeing identical dressed up products? Well, this is an extremely common tactic adopted by market competitors, reason being, to enhance their sales thereby stimulating likelihood of confusion amongst the purchasers. Using a similar name or a familiar packaging is not only a chance to ride upon the established brand name but also to gain easy profits in a short span of time. Such twin products hailing from different manufacturers are effortlessly found in local street-side small stores. At some point of time, we all have wrongly picked up local masala chips instead of Lay’s, deceived by indistinguishable packaging. This time a local marketer got tied up in a legal trademark dispute against Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited, the exclusive manufacturers of Pass Pass ‘Pulse’ Candy.

The plaintiff alleged that, the defendants were engaged in manufacturing and sale of toffees and candies under the mark ‘Pluss+’. As can be clearly seen, both the marks in question are similar in almost all contexts and the same was complained by the plaintiff. It was asserted that besides the name, the trade dress, green and black colour combinations, the overall get up and presentation and even the font applied, was almost like a replica. Such deceptively similar packaging shall, in all probabilities can create deception in the heads of buyers. Additionally, application and usage of such conflicting mark damages brand reputation, dilutes the brand image and has the ability to induce irreparable losses.

Mindful of the fact that both the products hail from same line of business along with evidences and facts substantiated by the plaintiff, the Delhi High passed orders restraining a defendant from carrying out business under the conflicting mark ‘PLUSS+’ or any other mark identical to or similar with plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘PULSE’ till further hearing.

The order stated, “In the meanwhile, till the next date of hearing, the defendant, its agents... are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, and advertising, directly or indirectly, the subject product i.e. fruit candies by using the infringing trade mark and/or packaging or any other packaging and/or trademark which bears a deceptive resemblance to the plaintiff’s trademark and/or packaging.”

To read more IPR related articles, log on to - https://www.trademarkclick.com/education-blog/