Madras High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Hatsun 'Arokya' Trademark Suit Against Patanjali 'Aarogya'

The Madras High Court on 21 April 2026 dismissed an appeal filed by Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., upholding a summary judgment rejecting its trademark infringement and passing off claims against Patanjali Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.

A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that the use of the mark “PATANJALI AAROGYA” for biscuits does not infringe Hatsun's “AROKYA” mark used for dairy products. It held:

“The goods falling under Class 30 (biscuits) are entirely different from goods under Class 29 (milk and milk products), and the respondents are protected under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act. Applying the principles laid down in Vishnudas Trading, the suit was held not maintainable and was dismissed in summary proceedings.”

Hatsun Agro challenged the summary judgment of the single Judge, which had dismissed its suit for trademark infringement and passing off. The impugned order held that Hatsun had no real prospect of success as the products were distinct (milk versus biscuits), the prefix “Patanjali” reduced the likelihood of confusion, and the Trade Marks Act permits coexistence of similar marks for different registered proprietors.

The single Judge also held that a full trial was unnecessary as there were no compelling reasons for oral evidence, given that the material facts were substantially undisputed.

In appeal, Hatsun contended that “AROKYA” is a well-known mark and that the court failed to appreciate triable issues arising from phonetic similarity, public confusion, and alleged bad faith adoption, all of which required a full trial.

Patanjali, on the other hand, submitted that it is the registered proprietor of the mark “PATANJALI AAROGYA” under Class 30. It argued that “AAROGYA” is a generic Sanskrit term meaning overall well-being, and that its products are visually and phonetically distinct from Hatsun's milk products.

The Division Bench observed that the goods marketed by both parties are distinct and fall under different classes—Class 29 for milk and milk products and Class 30 for biscuits.

It further noted that the prefix “Patanjali” operates as a strong distinguishing feature, reducing any likelihood of confusion, and ensuring that the use of “Aarogya” is not detrimental to Hatsun's mark.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Ltd., the Court reiterated that a proprietor cannot restrain use of a mark in relation to goods in which it does not deal.

The Court also referred to Sections 12 and 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, holding that the statute permits coexistence of identical or similar marks in cases of honest concurrent use or multiple registrations, and that there is no interconnectivity between the products so as to justify a monopoly across categories.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the 2020 order of the single Judge, which had summarily dismissed the suit with costs.