Introduction
Trademark protection is a cornerstone of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), especially in India’s fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector. Recently, Britannia Industries Ltd., one of India’s most trusted food brands, secured significant relief from the Delhi High Court in a trademark infringement case involving its iconic “Little Hearts” biscuits.
This case highlights how Indian courts actively safeguard well-known trademarks, product shapes, and trade dress from imitation and consumer deception.
Background of the Britannia Little Hearts Case [Britannia Industries Ltd v Shri Swastik Organics & Ors]
Britannia has been manufacturing and selling Little Hearts biscuits for over a decade. The product is known not only for its name but also for its distinctive heart-shaped design, packaging, and market reputation.
Britannia approached the Delhi High Court alleging that certain manufacturers were:
- Using the “Little Hearts” mark or deceptively similar names
- Selling heart-shaped biscuits closely resembling Britannia’s product
- Marketing these products through identical trade channels, including e-commerce platforms
Key Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in the Britannia Little Hearts case relates to trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Britannia, being the registered proprietor of the “Little Hearts” trademark, alleged that the defendants were using an identical or deceptively similar mark for the same category of goods, namely biscuits. The Court examined whether such use was likely to cause confusion among consumers and held that in cases involving well-established and reputed trademarks, even minor similarities are sufficient to constitute infringement. Since the competing products were identical in nature and marketed through the same trade channels, the likelihood of consumer confusion was presumed to be high.
Closely connected to statutory infringement was the issue of passing off, which protects the goodwill and reputation of a brand irrespective of registration. Britannia demonstrated long-standing use of the mark, extensive market presence, and strong consumer association with the Little Hearts brand. The defendants’ adoption of a similar name, product appearance, and marketing strategy was held to amount to misrepresentation, which could deceive consumers into believing that the infringing products originated from or were connected with Britannia. The Court recognised that such misrepresentation would inevitably cause damage to Britannia’s goodwill and brand value.
Another significant legal issue concerned the protection of trade dress and product shape. Britannia argued that the distinctive heart-shaped biscuit had acquired secondary meaning and was uniquely associated with its Little Hearts product. The Court accepted that while purely functional shapes cannot be monopolised, a product shape that has attained distinctiveness through prolonged and exclusive use may qualify for protection under trademark law and passing off principles. In this case, the heart shape, when considered along with the packaging and branding, was found to be an integral part of Britannia’s brand identity.
The Delhi High Court also applied the well-established “triple identity test”, which examines the similarity of the trademark, the nature of the goods, and the trade channels used. All three elements were found to be identical in the present case. The infringing products bore a deceptively similar mark, were identical in nature, and were sold through the same retail and online platforms. The satisfaction of the triple identity test strengthened the presumption of confusion and justified the grant of interim relief.
Consumer interest formed another critical dimension of the case. The Court observed that trademark law is not solely concerned with protecting the rights of brand owners but also with preventing deception of the public. Allowing the sale of copycat products in the FMCG sector could mislead consumers into purchasing inferior or unauthorised goods, thereby eroding trust in established brands. The Court emphasised that protecting consumers from confusion is a core objective of trademark jurisprudence.
A further legal issue arose regarding the responsibility of e-commerce platforms. The Court took note of the role played by online marketplaces in facilitating the sale of infringing goods and directed them to delist the offending products. While intermediaries enjoy conditional safe harbour protection under the Information Technology Act, 2000, such protection is contingent upon the exercise of due diligence. Once notified of infringement, platforms are expected to act promptly to prevent continued violation of intellectual property rights.
Finally, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim injunctions. It held that Britannia had successfully established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, and that continued infringement would result in irreparable harm to its reputation and goodwill that could not be adequately compensated through damages. On this basis, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising the infringing products.
Delhi High Court’s Observations
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favour of Britannia and made the following important observations:
The case satisfied the “triple identity test”:
- Same product (biscuits)
- Same or deceptively similar trademark
- Same trade channels (retail & e-commerce)
- The defendants’ products were prima facie infringing and likely to mislead consumers.
- Online marketplaces were directed to delist counterfeit and infringing products.
The Court restrained the defendants from:
- Manufacturing
- Selling
- Advertising
- Distributing biscuits under the infringing mark or design
Why This Case Is Important for Trademark Law in India
This judgment is significant because it:
✔ Reinforces protection of well-known trademarks
✔ Recognises product shape and trade dress as protectable IP
✔ Sends a strong message against copycat FMCG products
✔ Clarifies the responsibility of e-commerce platforms
✔ Strengthens consumer protection against deceptive goods
Lessons for Businesses & Startups
- Register your trademarks early, including logos and packaging.
- Protect distinctive product shapes where possible.
- Monitor marketplaces for infringement.
- Take swift legal action to avoid dilution of brand value.
Conclusion
The Britannia Little Hearts trademark case once again demonstrates that Indian courts are proactive in protecting intellectual property rights. In an era of rapid online commerce and brand imitation, this decision strengthens confidence in India’s IPR enforcement framework.
For businesses, it is a reminder that brand identity is a valuable legal asset—and for infringers, a warning that imitation comes with serious legal consequences.
