Delhi High Court Imposes ₹10 Lakh Cost On Parle In B Fizz 'For The Bold' Trademark Dispute with PepsiCo

The Delhi High Court has recently imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on Parle Agro Private Limited for failing to file certificates of sales revenue every two months as directed in a trademark dispute with PepsiCo Inc., holding that while the lapse was not wilful, it constituted a “clear unambiguous and serious violation” of its order.

PepsiCo had moved the court seeking action against Parle and its officers under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a provision that empowers courts to enforce interim injunctions and punish disobedience of such orders, alleging violation of an interim order dated September 18, 2023, passed in its suit over the tagline “For The Bold”.

The dispute arises from Parle's use of the tagline “For The Bold” in relation to its “B Fizz” beverage, including on product labels and in advertising campaigns, which PepsiCo claims infringes its registered trademark.

By the 2023 order, the court had, among other directions, restrained Parle from altering the label on its “B Fizz” beverage without prior approval of the court and from using the tagline “For The Bold” as the predominant part of any advertising campaign and directed it to take down specified advertisements and place on record certificates of sales revenue every two months from the commencement of use of the impugned label.

On April 7, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “Though this Court is not of the opinion that the non submission of the certificate of sales revenue every two months effective from the time the use of the label containing 'For The Bold' commenced till date, is wilful, but nonetheless, is a clear, unambiguous, and serious violation of the order of this Court. Neither an explanation nor an apology for the same is either tendered or is discernible from the contents of both the affidavits."

PepsiCo argued that Parle had continued to host advertisements containing the tagline on its X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram accounts and had failed to comply with the direction to file certificates of sales revenue every two months. It contended that the power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is punitive in nature and should be invoked to address such conduct.

The court, however, took a more measured view of the social media issue. It noted that only two posts remained online and that both dated back to 2022, well before the September 2023 order. In that context, their continued presence was attributed to oversight rather than intent, with the judge observing that there was “no semblance to a deliberate or wilful disobedience.”

The lapse in filing sales revenue certificates drew a very different response. For more than two and a half years, the required disclosures were not placed on record, and the court found no explanation for this prolonged non-compliance. It was not persuaded by the argument that the data would only matter at a later stage of the suit. What weighed instead was the simple fact that a clear direction had been issued and not followed.

“The sanctity and purity attached to Court's orders should and must, at all times, be maintained so as to ensure that the administration of justice is seen to be consistent and firm. The argument that a particular document directed to be placed on record would get diluted merely because a party considers that such documents may not be relevant at a particular stage, in these circumstances, is rejected,” the court observed.

Holding that such non-compliance could not be countenanced, the court imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on Parle Agro, directing that the amount be paid to the “Bharat Ke Veer” fund within three weeks.

It also directed the deponent of the company's affidavits to tender an unconditional apology within four weeks for the failure to comply with the court's directions.

The application was disposed of in these terms, with the matter listed for further proceedings on September 10, 2026.