Introduction
In modern commerce, a trademark is far more than a brand name—it is a symbol of reputation, quality, and consumer assurance. Trade dress, encompassing the overall visual appearance of a product and its packaging, plays an equally vital role in shaping consumer perception. As markets grow increasingly crowded, disputes over deceptive similarity and look-alike branding have become frequent, particularly in sectors like tobacco where brand recall directly influences consumer choice. The case of ITC Limited v. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. exemplifies the evolving challenges in trademark enforcement. Adjudicated by the Delhi High Court, the dispute illustrates how courts balance brand protection against attempts to dilute goodwill through deceptively similar marks and trade dress.
Legal Framework Governing Trademarks and Trade Dress
Trademark and trade dress protection in India is governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999. While trademarks distinguish the goods of one entity from another, trade dress extends protection to the visual and aesthetic elements that identify the source of goods. In the present case, ITC Limited—an established leader in the tobacco industry—asserted its statutory and common law rights over the “GOLD FLAKE” trademark and its distinctive packaging. The plaintiff alleged that Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. had deliberately adopted marks and labels closely resembling ITC’s branding, thereby misleading consumers and constituting infringement and passing off.
Procedural Background
The litigation arose from ITC’s commercial IP suit alleging continuous infringement by the defendants. The matter involved multiple interim applications, notably:
- I.A. 26413/2025 – Filed by the defendants seeking modification or clarification of an earlier order restraining the use of “GF FLAME,” contending that the court’s observations did not accurately reflect their submissions.
- I.A. 34381/2024 – Addressing compliance with prior injunctions, disclosure of sales figures, and the defendants’ subsequent adoption of a new mark, “GF FIGHTER.”
The court’s consideration of these applications highlighted the broader issue of whether defendants were attempting to circumvent judicial restraints through cosmetic rebranding.
Material Facts
ITC Limited is the registered proprietor of the “GOLD FLAKE” trademark, enjoying longstanding goodwill and market dominance in the cigarette segment. The defendants were found to be marketing cigarettes under marks such as “GOLD FLAME,” “GOLD FIGHTER,” “GOAD FLAME,” and “GOAD FIGHTER,” all bearing close resemblance to the plaintiff’s brand in name, structure, and packaging. Despite earlier injunctions restraining such use, discrepancies emerged in the defendants’ financial disclosures. Sales invoices revealed figures significantly higher than those declared in affidavits, raising concerns regarding transparency and good faith. Further, the adoption of the “GF FIGHTER” mark indicated a continued attempt to ride upon ITC’s established reputation.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed several crucial questions:
- Whether prior orders restraining the defendants could be modified or clarified
- Whether the adoption of “GF FIGHTER” constituted a fresh infringement or an attempt to evade existing injunctions
- Whether discrepancies in sales disclosures reflected mala fide intent
- Whether continued use of similar trade dress aggravated consumer confusion
These issues underscored the tension between judicial compliance and commercial opportunism.
Comparative Analysis: Plaintiff vs. Defendants
The Delhi High Court undertook a detailed comparison of the competing marks and trade dress. It found that all impugned marks were deceptively similar to “GOLD FLAKE” in phonetic, visual, and overall commercial impression. The similarity in packaging, colour scheme, and presentation further heightened the likelihood of consumer confusion, particularly given that both parties dealt in identical goods sold through similar trade channels.
To know more about this, please check the link below.
Court’s Reasoning
Refusal to Modify Prior Orders
The court dismissed the defendants’ plea for modification, noting that earlier statements had been made voluntarily by authorised representatives and counsel. The record, therefore, reflected a conscious and informed undertaking, leaving no scope for alteration.
Injunction Against “GF FIGHTER”
The court held that the introduction of “GF FIGHTER” was a clear attempt to bypass existing injunctions. The mark and its trade dress were found to continue the pattern of deceptive similarity, warranting immediate restraint.
Sales Discrepancy and Conduct
The unexplained mismatch between declared sales and invoice figures strengthened the inference of bad faith, justifying stricter scrutiny and further compliance directions.
Implications of the Decision
This ruling reaffirms that superficial changes in branding cannot sanitise infringement. Courts will look beyond minor variations to assess overall impression, intent, and market impact. The judgment also reinforces the principle that reputed trademarks deserve heightened protection, particularly against repeat infringers. For businesses, the case is a stark reminder that ethical branding and strict compliance with judicial orders are non-negotiable. Attempts to exploit brand equity through deceptive practices invite severe legal consequences.
Conclusion
ITC Limited v. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. stands as a significant precedent in Indian trademark jurisprudence. It strengthens the enforcement of trade dress rights, emphasises judicial vigilance against evasive tactics, and underscores the responsibility of businesses to uphold fair competition. As trademark disputes continue to evolve, this decision reinforces that brand integrity, consumer trust, and legal compliance remain at the heart of intellectual property protection in India’s competitive marketplace.