In Everest Food Products v. Shyam Dhani Industries (Bombay HC, 2 Jan 2025), the Court restrains use of “Tikha Lal” for chilli powder, rejects the Section 30(2)(a) “descriptive use” defence, calls out fabricated invoices, and slaps ₹2,00,000 costs on the defendant – textbook consequences of bad faith. The order tracks Bombay HC doctrine that “sub-brands” or supposedly descriptive elements are still trademarks when used as badges of origin (see Hem Corp v. ITC; Jagdish Kamath v. Lime & Chilli).
Also Read : Ten Point Evidence Pack To Prove Trade Dress Injunctions – Mumbai HC
Why this matters (for founders, owners, and litigators)
- Function over label. Courts look at how a term is used on the pack. If it’s front-and-centre and constant across SKUs, it’s trademark use, not “mere description”, so Section 30(2)(a) won’t protect you. (Hem Corp; Jagdish Kamath.)
- Integrity is strategy. Forged invoices and shape-shifting stories don’t just fail they cost. Here, the Court imposed ₹2 lakh for fabricating a sales invoice to shore up a false “use since 2006” narrative.
- Delay won’t rescue bad faith. Even if a plaintiff sues “late,” clear copying plus dishonest conduct tilt the balance of convenience toward injunction. (Tikhalal order’s tenor; broader Bombay IPD line.)
Also Read : Beating “Descriptive Use”: Five Packaging Mistakes That Hand Plaintiffs a Win
Case snapshot
- Case: Everest Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Shyam Dhani Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
- Court / Bench: Bombay High Court (IPD), R.I. Chagla, J.
- Order date: 2 January 2025 (interim injunction + costs)
- Core holdings: (i) “TIKHA LAL” was used as a trademark, so Section 30(2)(a) didn’t apply; (ii) the defendant fabricated invoices, inviting adverse inference and ₹2,00,000 costs; (iii) similarity analysis supported restraint.
Also Read : E-Commerce Platform Liability Demystified: Safe-Harbor Limits and Platform Control Post-Lifestyle Equities
The Court’s reasoning (what convinced the judge)
1) Use-as-mark defeats “descriptive” defence. The judge examined the packaging and marketing use, concluding that “TIKHA LAL” functioned as a source identifier, not a neutral descriptor of spiciness. That takes the case outside Section 30(2)(a), which protects only genuinely descriptive references. This tracks the Bombay line in Hem Corp v. ITC (no “sub-brand” escape) and Jagdish Kamath (descriptor defence is narrow).
2) Conduct corrodes credibility (fabrication = costs). The Court recorded that an invoice relied on to prove early use was fabricated; media reports emphasise the false case of the user since 2006. That dishonesty warranted penal costs (₹2 lakh) a cautionary signal that procedural gamesmanship backfires.
Also Read : Deceptively Similar Trademarks: Never-Ending Conflicts from the Perspectives of the Madras High Court
3) Likelihood of confusion and market harm. With near-identical word structure (space aside) on identical goods (chilli powder), multiple outlets report the Court’s temporary injunction and sweeping restraints on manufacturing, packaging, selling, and advertising under “Tikha Lal” or any deceptively similar mark.
Conclusion (operative order): Interim injunction restraining use of “Tikha Lal”/deceptively similar marks; ₹2,00,000 costs payable within four weeks for dishonest conduct/fabrication.
Also Read : Keyword Advertising & Confusion: Decoding the MakeMyTrip vs. Booking.com Saga
Flowchart: How to beat Section 30(2)(a) (and expose fabrication)
Collect the pack → Prove brand-style use → Surface defendant admissions → Forensics on documents → Press the triad
- On-pack hierarchy: Same-scale images show size/placement/typography, the impugned term as the badge of origin (not a small-quality note).
- Admissions & filings: Pull the defendant’s TM applications, marketing decks, purchase orders anything calling the term their trademark. (In Tikhalal, defendants pursued “Shyam Tikha Lal” filings.)
- Document integrity: Compare invoices tendered in Registry vs Court; check metadata, serial patterns, GST timelines. Here, the fabricated invoice was decisive.
- Legal anchors: Cite Hem Corp (no “sub-brand” dodge) + Jagdish Kamath (descriptor defence is narrow).
- Reliefs: Seek restraint across manufacture, packaging, sale, advertising; add costs for dishonesty. The Court did exactly that.
Also Read : Administrative vs. Judicial Routes to Well-Known Status: Lessons from Vistara and TAJ
Case timeline (compressed)
- 2000–2002: Everest develops/uses TIKHALAL; long-standing market presence.
- 2015–2021: Rival pushes “Shyam Tikha Lal”; objections and litigation ensue. (Defendant later touts dubious “use since 2006.”)
- 2 Jan 2025: Bombay HC grants interim injunction, finds fabrication, and imposes ₹2 lakh costs.
Also Read : Dynamic Injunctions in the Digital Marketplace: Reliance’s Shield Against Online Brand Misuse
Comparison table: “Descriptor” that behaved like a brand
| Factor | What a true descriptor looks like | What the Court saw in “Tikha Lal” |
|---|---|---|
| Placement & size | Small, secondary; next to a dominant house brand | Prominent, headline use on packs behaving like a brand |
| Consistency | Varies with attributes; not constant across SKUs | Consistent identity across products classic brand behaviour |
| Filings/claims | No claims to exclusivity | Trademark filings referring to “Shyam Tikha Lal” |
| Narrative | Honest records; no rights claimed | Fabricated invoice and shifting story → adverse inference + costs |
| Outcome | Likely safe under s.30(2)(a) | Defence rejected; injunction + ₹2 lakh costs |
Sources: LiveLaw; Verdictum; Free Press Journal; court-generated order extract; Lexology note.
Also Read : Use-It-Or-Lose-It in Action: Non-Use Cancellation and Cleansing the Register
Checklist: Plaintiff playbook for “bad-faith + fabricated evidence” cases
- Visuals first: One-page comparison board (front/side/top of packs) that makes first-glance confusion obvious.
- Admissions file: Defendant’s TM applications, catalogues, and social posts showing branding – not description.
- Forensic sweep: Reconcile invoice versions (court vs registry), check numbering/GST; record contradictions in affidavits.
- Authority pack: Hem Corp (sub-brand still a trademark) + Jagdish Kamath (descriptor defence is narrow).
- Reliefs & costs: Ask for injunction across manufacture–sale–advertisement and penal costs where dishonesty is proven (as in Tikhalal).
Also Read : Anti-Dissection vs. Dominant Part: Under Armour’s Landmark Victory at the Delhi High Court
About the Author
Suresh Kumar, Advocate, is the Managing Attorney at Unimarks Legal Solutions, Chennai. Practising since 2008, he focuses on trademark infringement and passing off, appeals from the Registrar, rectification, and online/platform enforcement before the Madras High Court (IPD), Commercial Courts, and District Courts across Tamil Nadu. His practice is courtroom-first, grounded in robust pleadings, evidence discipline, and post-order enforcement. He frequently speaks on IP law at industrial forums and universities and is associated with SICCI, CII, and the Tamil Nadu Chamber of Commerce.
This article is for information and education. It is not legal advice, does not create a lawyer–client relationship, and avoids case-specific recommendations. Conflicts are screened per firm policy before any engagement.
Also Read : E-Infringement Exposed: The Landmark Amazon vs. Beverly Hills Polo Club Ruling and Its Broader Impact
