Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Use of 'Dream Freedom' Mark, Protects 'FREEDOM' Oil Brand

Presiding over the case, Justice Jyoti Singh observed that Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. (GEF India) had established a prima facie case for an injunction. The court noted that Dream Freedom Herbal's registration had already been cancelled by the court, yet the company was “continuing to infringe the trademark of the Plaintiff as also pass off its goods”.

GEF India submitted that it discovered that Dream Freedom Herbal was selling products under the mark “DREAM FREEDOM” using a trade dress and packaging that the plaintiff contends is nearly identical to its own. GEF India alleges that the defendant's mark subsumes the “FREEDOM” brand in its entirety and that the use of a similar green, yellow, white, and red color scheme is a calculated attempt to misrepresent its products as being associated with GEF India.

GEF India is a public limited company and a subsidiary of Golden Agri-Resources (GAR), which claims to be one of the world's largest integrated agribusinesses. In its suit, GEF India submitted that it conceived and adopted the mark FREEDOM for edible oils in 2009 and has since built it into an industry leader.

According to the pleadings, GEF India submitted that it has acquired formidable goodwill, evidenced by an annual sales turnover reaching approximately Rs. 6,761 Crores in the 2024-25 financial year. The company claims that a 2025 market research report by A.C. Nielson ranked the FREEDOM brand as No. 1 in the country.

GEF India claims it originally sent a cease-and-desist notice in March 2022, which went unanswered. Subsequently, GEF India initiated cancellation proceedings against the defendant's registered mark.

In December 2024, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition and cancelled the defendant's registration for "DREAM FREEDOM".

Despite this, GEF India alleges that the defendant continued to use the infringing mark for the sale of identical goods.

The court stated that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and that GEF India would likely suffer irreparable harm if an immediate injunction were not granted.

The High Court has issued the following orders, effective until the next hearing:

• The defendant and its affiliates are barred from using the mark “FREEDOM” or any identical or similar name as a trademark, trade name, domain name, or on social media.
• The firm is restrained from using the distinctive artistic device associated with the FREEDOM brand, protecting GEF India's registered copyrights.
• GEF India has been directed to comply with the service requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within two weeks.

The matter is scheduled to return to the Joint Registrar on March 9, 2026, for the admission and denial of documents, with the court hearing set for April 9, 2026.

For GEF India: Advocates Shikha Sachdeva, Kriti Rathi and Annie Jacob