Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers’ Federation Ltd

A major ruling explaining distinctiveness, non-similarity of goods, and the limits of trademark monopoly when marks are visually/phonetic similar but goods differ.

Summary

The dispute involved the restaurant “Nandhini Deluxe,” which used the word “NANDHINI,” and the Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF), which marketed dairy products under the brand “NANDINI.” KMF claimed that the restaurant’s mark was deceptively similar to its well-known dairy mark.

The Supreme Court held that although the marks were similar, the nature of goods and services was entirely different, and consumers were unlikely to be confused. The Court strongly emphasized that a trademark owner cannot claim monopoly over every similar-sounding word unless the goods are related.

Facts

KMF had long been using the mark “NANDINI” for milk, ghee, butter, and dairy products. The restaurant “Nandhini Deluxe” wanted registration for restaurant and food-service-related classes. KMF opposed the registration, arguing that the restaurant was taking advantage of its reputation.

The Registrar and IPAB initially sided with KMF, refusing registration. The restaurant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Findings

The Supreme Court found that although “NANDINI” and “NANDHINI” sound similar, the trade channels, products, and customer expectations were totally different. Restaurants serve cooked food; KMF sells milk and dairy.

The Court said that trademark protection cannot extend to unrelated goods or services unless strong evidence of confusion exists. It also recognised that “Nandhini” is a common Indian female name, reducing the possibility of exclusive ownership.

Suggestions

When marks are similar but goods differ, applicants should highlight differences in trade channels, consumer base, visual style, and overall usage. Trademark owners should avoid overclaiming monopoly over common dictionary or personal names unless confusion is provable.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed registration for “Nandhini Deluxe,” holding that there was no likelihood of confusion. KMF could not block the restaurant simply on the basis of phonetic similarity.