Karnataka High Court Upholds Injunction Against 'TULSI' Agarbatti Mark, Finds Prima Facie Infringement Of 'TULASI'

In a judgment delivered on March 25, 2026, Justice Ravi V. Hosmani held that Jallan Enterprises' use of the word “TULSI” was displayed in a trademark-like manner that prima facie infringed the long-standing registered mark “TULASI” of Sarathi International Inc.

The Court observed that the phonetic identity between the two marks, created by the mere omission of the letter “a,” was sufficient to cause confusion among consumers with imperfect recollections.

The Bench remarked that because the trial court had exercised its discretion based on a reasonable assessment of the material, there was no legal ground for the appellate court to interfere with the injunction.

Jallan Enterprises (the Appellant) had challenged an April 2025 order passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which had restrained them from using the mark pending the final disposal of the suit.

Sarathi International Inc. (the Respondent) had initiated the litigation to protect its trademark rights, seeking a permanent injunction and the recovery of profits. The Respondent was aggrieved by the Appellant's 2023 market entry with “TULSI” branded products, which they alleged was a dishonest attempt to capitalize on the reputation the plaintiff had established since 1950.

Sarathi International Inc. contended that it is a premier manufacturer that has continuously and exclusively used the mark “TULASI” for over seven decades. The firm pleaded that the mark had acquired a distinct secondary meaning in the minds of the public, making it synonymous with their products. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that they discovered the defendant's infringing goods in December 2023, and that the defendant's refusal to comply with a cease-and-desist notice necessitated the lawsuit.

Conversely, Jallan Enterprises contended that its use of “TULSI” was a bona fide descriptive use protected under Sections 30 and 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The firm pleaded that the word was intended only to indicate the basil fragrance of the agarbattis, similar to their use of other descriptors like Camphor or Lavender.

Evaluating these contentions, the court found that “Even though defendant is displaying pictures of Tulsi pot and leaves on its package, its claim on need to use word Tulsi to describe contents/flavour would fail, apparently on account of prominent use of word 'TULSI'. Thus, there would be sufficient justification for conclusion by trial Court that 'TULASI' functions as a source identifier than ingredient and competitors are not dependent on this term alone for description. Moreso, when 'TULASI' and 'TULSI' are phonetic similar.”

The Court held that the appellant's (Jallan Enterprises) claim of protection for descriptive use under Sections 30 and 35 of the Trade Marks Act was “unacceptable at that stage”,. The Bench held that for statutory protection to be available, the use must be bonafide and purely descriptive; however, Jallan's usage was deemed trademark-like rather than descriptive.

“Hence, conclusion that defendant's use of similar mark 'TULSI' prima facie constitutes infringement regardless of packaging differences, even if proof of goodwill for passing off is limited at interlocutory stage, also cannot be contended to be without any basis or contrary to material on record. Though protection under Section 30 (2) (a) of TMA is urged on ground that 'TULASI' denotes fragrance, underlying principle is that statutory protection is available only for bonafide and purely descriptive use,” the court observed.

Upon comparing the rival packages, the Court agreed with the trial court that the usage of the word “TULSI” by the appellant was “not descriptive, but prominent”. The Bench observed that the word was printed in a larger font style than the appellant's own registered trademark, “JALLAN,” which was intended to attract the respondent's customers.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the balance of convenience favored the prior user and that allowing the Appellant to continue would result in brand dilution.

For Jallan Enterprises: Advocate Sivaramakrishnan M. Sivsankaran

For Sarathi International: Advocate Priya V.