Madras High Court Rules Against 7-Eleven in 'Big Bite' Trademark Battle With Indian Company
Riya Rathore
11 Feb 2026 4:19 PM IST
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a batch of appeals filed by a global retail giant, 7-Eleven International LLC, upholding the “Big Bite” trademark in favour of an Indian company, Ravi Foods Private Limited.
The court held that "there is no material to show that the appellant has done business on Indian soil, with the aforesaid mark, on the date of the application or at any subsequent point of time prior to the commencement of opposition proceedings."
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, in its judgment affirmed a 2014 order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks that rejected 7-Eleven's opposition and accepted the Indian company's application for the mark.
The dispute, spanning more than a decade, concerned rival claims over the “Big Bite” trademark for food products in Class 30, including chocolates, biscuits, bakery items and savoury snacks.
While 7-Eleven argued it had used the mark internationally since 1988 and applied for Indian registration in 1994, the court found no evidence that the company had actually sold products under that name within India prior to the dispute.
The court relied on previous precedents to delve into the 'Territoriality Doctrine,' which mandates that trademark rights are governed by the laws and usage within a specific country rather than global presence. The court noted that Ravi Foods, which took over the mark from Dukes Consumer Care, had been extensively selling products under the "Big Bite" name across India since October 2004.
The international reputation of the global giant is immaterial; the Indian firm submitted regarding 7-Eleven's lack of local presence, asserting that a foreign company cannot stifle a local business if the Indian company was "first in the market".
7-Eleven contended that its brand was well-known in India because its trademark is visible on its international websites accessible to Indian consumers.
However, the court rejected this and observed, “The fact that the appellant had applied for registration in 1994, but had not commenced business or sale in this country either on the said date or on the date of commencement of opposition proceedings almost over a decade later in 2007, is also an additional (though not decisive) factor that weighs in the balance while testing the order of the Registrar declining registration of the appellant's mark.”
The court also took note of 7-Eleven's failure to commence business in India for many years after its 1994 application.
The court referred to Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, which permits registration only of marks that are used or genuinely proposed to be used. Relying on earlier precedents, the court held that prolonged non-use after application can be a relevant factor when assessing competing trademark claims
The High Court, accordingly, dismissed the appeals.
For 7-Eleven: Advocate K.Harishankar for Archer & Angel
For Respondents: Advocates S.Diwakar, SPC; K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi, CGSC; Aanchal M.Nichani