Delhi High Court Rejects Britannia Interim Plea Against Renewtria, Says Pentagonal Mark Alone Not Shown Distinctive

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant a temporary injunction to Britannia Industries Limited in its trademark dispute against a manufacturer using the mark “RENEWTRIA” inside a similar geometric label.

In a judgment dated March 24, 2026, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Britannia was unable to show that its five-sided pentagonal device, when used by itself without the well-known “BRITANNIA” wordmark, had acquired a distinctive identity among consumers.

The court also pointed to clear differences between the rival labels. The wordmarks used by the parties were entirely different, and the colour schemes as well as the overall presentation did not create a similar commercial impression. The court added that the possibility of confusion was even less likely in online sales, where purchases are usually made consciously rather than casually.

Britannia Industries Limited filed the suit seeking a permanent injunction and ancillary reliefs to restrain Rajat Chawla, the sole proprietor of Madhve Global Enterprises, from using the mark “RENEWTRIA”. The litigation was initiated because Britannia alleged the Chawla had slavishly copied its registered geometric pentagonal structure, a five-sided curvaceous device adopted in 2018, and that such use amounted to trademark infringement. Britannia claimed this unauthorized adoption constituted a dishonest attempt to imply a false connection between the companies and capitalize on Britannia's extensive goodwill.

Britannia was aggrieved by the defendant's refusal to comply with a cease-and-desist notice dated March 13, 2024, which led to the institution of the suit to prevent consumers from being misled by the allegedly similar styling. In its pleadings, Britannia contended that it is a leading Indian food company with an annual revenue of approximately Rs 16,000 crores and that its “BRITANNIA” wordmark has been declared well-known.

Conversely, Madhve Global Enterprises contended that its business of selling flavored candies, confectionery, cake decorations, preserved dried fruits and condiments was entirely distinct from Britannia's bakery and dairy goods. The defendant argued that a mere geometric pentagonal structure, without the color combination or the famous trade name, cannot be distinctive of the plaintiff's brand. It further submitted that the wordmark “RENEWTRIA” is visually and phonetically different from “BRITANNIA” and that the overall commercial impression of the two labels is entirely different.

Evaluating the rival marks, the court held that the plaintiff's failure to specifically identify which of its nineteen trademark registrations was being infringed made the plaint deliberately vague.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, the non-identification of the specific TM registration at paragraph '31' makes the plaint deliberately vague, which leads to difficulty in the appreciation of the contents of the claim in the plaint and is thus likely to prejudice the Defendant, who is unable to meet the precise case of the Plaintiff. The plaint also creates difficulty for the Court to appreciate the allegations of infringement. ,” the court said.

The bench further held that Britannia failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, observing that the plaintiff could not establish similarity of marks, similarity of goods, or any likelihood of confusion or association.

“It is trite law that for testing the visual and structural similarity, rival composite marks are to be compared as a whole, rather than dissecting them and comparing the individual aspects to determine the likelihood of consumer confusion.” the court clarified.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the injunction application, holding that the balance of convenience was in favour of the defendant and that no irreparable injury would be caused to Britannia.