Sanchayita Lahkar

The Bombay High Court at Nagpur, Single Bench of Justice Rohit W. Joshi set aside a District Court’s injunction that had restrained a Uttar Pradesh-based popcorn maize manufacturer, SNT & Co., from using its trademark and packaging following allegations of imitation by Shah Nanji Nagis Exports Pvt. Ltd. (SNN). The Court observed that the lower court had not adequately examined the overall appearance and distinct visual elements of the competing packaging before concluding deceptive similarity. In its order dated November 3, Justice Joshi lifted the earlier restraint and directed the District Judge to reconsider the temporary injunction application afresh, assessing whether the rival products’ presentation could genuinely mislead or confuse consumers.

The dispute arose between a Nagpur-based trading company, Shah Nanji Nagis Exports Pvt. Ltd. (the plaintiff), and a Uttar Pradesh-based firm, SNT & Co. (the defendant), both engaged in the business of popcorn maize and similar agricultural products. The plaintiff, a long-established trading house dealing in oil seeds, food grains, corn, starch, and pulses, claimed ownership of the registered trademark “SNN” under Class 31 of the Trade Marks Registry at Mumbai, effective from June 25, 2022. It alleged that the defendant was marketing its popcorn maize under the mark “SNT,” which was deceptively similar to its registered mark, and using packaging and trade dress closely resembling its own.

Also Read: MV Act | Supreme Court Quashes MP High Court Order; Private Bus Operators Cannot Ply On Inter-State Routes Overlapping Notified State Transport Routes

The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s use of the mark and similar visual presentation was intended to exploit its goodwill and reputation, thereby misleading consumers. It further stated that the defendant’s application to register “SNT” under Class 30 had been rejected, while another under Class 31 remained pending. In support, the plaintiff produced trademark registration certificates, images of packaging, and details showing long-standing market presence. It sought a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from using the disputed mark or similar packaging for related goods.

The defendant opposed the claim, disputing any similarity in the marks or packaging. It asserted that the plaintiff’s trademark protection extended only to the word “SNN” and not to any particular design or packaging. The defendant argued that the trade dress, color schemes, and layout of its product differed significantly and that no likelihood of consumer confusion existed. It relied on the visual differences between the two products, including placement of text, colors, and graphic elements, to support its position.

The trial court considered these submissions under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, including Section 29, which addresses trademark infringement and deceptive similarity between marks and packaging.

The Court recorded that the plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the trademark and that “the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant is also engaged in the same business of sale of popcorn maize kernels” and that the defendant allegedly adopted a deceptively similar trademark and packaging. It noted the defendant’s denial wherein “the defendant has stated that the trade dress, label and packaging of the product of the plaintiff and defendant are different.”

While examining the packets, the Court stated that “perusal of the trade dress of plaintiff will demonstrate that the words ‘SNN’ are mentioned prominently beginning from left hand side top corner of the packet” and further described the arrangement of the plaintiff’s packet including “a band in different colour” and mentions of product features such as “zero trans fat”, “Non-GMO” and “high in fiber”. In contrast, it recorded that “perusal of trade dress/packaging of the defendant will demonstrate that the words, ‘SNT’ are mentioned in the middle top portion of the packet” and that the packet is “all throughout in multicolour” with “corncobs… highlighted in yellow colour.”

The Court observed that the trial court failed to engage with these distinctions, recording that “the learned trial Court has merely stated that perusal of the photographs appended to the pleadings indicated that peculiar details on both packets were exactly same… However, the order does not disclose application of mind to arrive at such conclusion.” It further stated that “the aspects with respect to the design of two packets which are quoted herein above are not even considered by the learned trial Court.”

The Court held that while a holistic approach is required, “the distinctive features should be discussed in order to decide as to whether the two packets/trade dresses, viewed as a whole, would cause confusion in the mind of end consumers or not.” It added that “the Court must sit in the armchair of the end consumer to decide as to whether there is any likelihood or confusion in the mind of the consumers.”

Also Read: Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely Because One Party Remains Absent; Trial Court Must Independently Assess Evidence Even In Ex Parte Proceedings: Bombay High Court

The Court ordered that “the appeal against order is partly allowed. The order dated 26/06/2025 passed by the learned District Judge-13, Nagpur on application at Exh.5 in Trade Mark Suit No.7/2024 is quashed and set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the said application afresh in the light of the observations made in the present order.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Y.B. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Dewani, Advocate

Case Title: SNT and Company & Anr. vs. M/s Shah Nanji Nagis Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-NAG:11390
Case Number: Appeal Against Order No.11/2025
Bench: Justice Rohit W. Joshi