Telangana High Court Upholds Injunction Against 'Namaskar Tasty Nutts' In 'Tasty Gold' Trademark Dispute

The Telangana High Court has upheld a temporary injunction restraining edible oil manufacturer Vaidehi Agro Oils from using “Namaskar Tasty Nutts”. The court found that the mark and packaging could confuse consumers into believing that the oil was linked to Sri Tulasi Industries' “Tasty Gold” brand

“Most of the targeted consumers would be illiterates and semiliterates and there is every possibility that they would be easily confused to draw a distinction between the oils of the plaintiff's firm and defendant Nos.1 and 2 company,” the High Court noted, reproducing the trial court's reasoning on the competing packaging.

Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar allowed Sri Tulasi Industries' application seeking vacation of the High Court's May 5, 2026, interim order, which had suspended the injunction. A civil miscellaneous appeal filed by Vaidehi Agro Oils was also dismissed.

Sri Tulasi Industries, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and marketing edible oils, has used the registered “Tasty Gold” mark since December 1, 2000. It holds trademark registrations in Class 29 for edible oils and copyright registrations covering artistic features of its label.

The firm alleged that Vaidehi Agro Oils copied the dominant first syllable “Tasty”, replaced “Gold” with “Nutts” and reproduced elements of its packaging, including the artistic layout and red colour scheme. It claimed the similarities could make consumers believe that the competing oil originated from it.

The trial court granted the temporary injunction after finding that Sri Tulasi Industries was the prior user of “Tasty Gold” and that its trademark and copyright registrations were subsisting. It also found that the prominence given to “Tasty Nutts”, along with the visual similarities, phonetic closeness and trade-dress similarity, created a clear probability of deception and passing off.

Before the High Court, Vaidehi Agro Oils argued that the trial court had not properly assessed the competing marks as a whole. It contended that “Namaskar Tasty Nutts” was sufficiently distinct from “Tasty Gold” and that “Tasty” was a common descriptive word over which Sri Tulasi Industries could not claim exclusivity.

The High Court rejected the challenge to the prima facie case. Referring to Sections 27(2) and 34 of the Trade Marks Act, Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar observed that a prior user's rights are protected against passing off. Since Sri Tulasi Industries had used “Tasty Gold” since 2000 and its registrations remained in force, the court held that the prima facie requirement for a temporary injunction was satisfied.

In simple terms, Section 27(2) preserves a person's right to take action against passing off, while Section 34 recognises the rights of a prior user of a trademark. The High Court relied on these provisions while considering Sri Tulasi Industries' claim based on its earlier use of “Tasty Gold”.

The court also upheld the trial court's assessment of balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Sri Tulasi Industries had used the mark for years and built sales and goodwill, while the competing product was a relatively recent entry. The court observed that continued use of the disputed mark could cause “severe irreparable loss” to the firm's sales and reputation.

Vaidehi Agro Oils had also pointed to another edible oil manufacturer using “Super Tasty” to argue that “Tasty” was widely used in the trade. The High Court noted that Sri Tulasi Industries had earlier secured an injunction against that manufacturer in appeal and held that the appellants could not rely on third-party use to excuse their own “imitation gimmick."

The earlier case involved Sri Sapthagiri Industries, against which Sri Tulasi Industries had sought an injunction over the use of “Super Tasty”.

The trial court had initially dismissed that application, but the High Court allowed the appeal in 2021 and continued the injunction, finding similarities between the marks and holding that the prior user had established goodwill warranting protection.

The court also dealt with the trial court's decision to stay the main suit pending trademark rectification proceedings. It held that the stay did not prevent the trial court from granting interim protection because Section 124(5) of the Trade Marks Act preserves the court's power to pass interlocutory orders, including temporary injunctions, during the stay.

The High Court found no perversity, arbitrariness, jurisdictional error, or misapplication of law in the trial court's order.

It therefore declined to interfere with the temporary injunction, vacated the May 5, 2026 order suspending it and dismissed Vaidehi Agro Oils' appeal.