Kerala court fines private dairy US$ 115,400 for imitating Milma branding

INDIA – The Principal Thiruvananthapuram Commercial Court judge Mariam Salomi has imposed a penalty of Rs 1 crore on Milnna, a private dairy, for copying the cover design and brand name of Milma on its milk packets an act the court ruled as a violation of trade laws.

The judge also restrained the Milnna from marketing, selling or advertising any milk, milk products or allied products using product packaging similar to those of Milma.

“The defendant and his agents are restrained from marketing, offering for sale, advertising for sale and selling any milk or milk products or allied products using plaint C schedule marks or trademarks, trade dress/cover which is deceptively similar to plaint A schedule registered trademarks and B schedule trade dress packing belongs to the plaintiff in India by a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction“, the judge ordered.

The judge further directed the private dairy to cover the litigation costs incurred by Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation.

The order was passed on a suit filed by Milma seeking a perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from selling its milk under the name Milnna, or in sachets that closely resembled Milma’s cover design and name.

It was argued that the first three letters of the plaintiff’s trademark ‘Milma’ are taken from the word milk, and the last two letters are taken from the word marketing.

It is therefore an invented word completely distinctive in nature. The trademark was registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, with trademark No.437327 with effect from May 6, 1985 and is valid till May 6, 2026.

The plaintiff contended that over the years, it has used and registered several variations of Milma and thus, it had established proprietary and legal rights over the trademark Milma and its variants.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant had also copied unique packing design and colour combination of Milma products.

Although the defendant received a summons from the Court, he did not appear before the Court or challenge the plaintiff’s case, leaving the Court with no material on record to disbelieve the plaintiff’s case.

Subscribe to receive our email newsletters with the latest news and insights from Africa, the Middle East and around the world. SUBSCRIBE HERE