The Delhi High Court has issued an order granting interim protection to ITC Limited, which owns the well-known cigarette brand “Gold Flake”, restraining third parties from manufacturing, advertising, or selling cigarettes under marks such as “Gold Flame” and “Gold Fighter”, which are allegedly deceptively similar to its own trademark and product design. The Court found that the impugned marks exploited not only the phrase “Gold” but also adopted a very similar trade dress, including color schemes, packaging layout, and roundel device, which is likely to cause confusion among consumers.
In its investigation, ITC carried out both online and on-ground market surveys. These revealed that the defendants were manufacturing and supplying cigarettes under the names “Gold Flame” and “Gold Fighter,” and retail outlets were found selling such cigarettes. Physical samples of these infringing products were also produced before the Court. Based on the comparison, the Court noted strong visual and structural resemblance between ITC’s “Gold Flake” pack and the infringing goods, observing that the overall get-up of the packs, use of red and gold hues, and placement of design elements were substantially similar to the established brand.
The Court held that the similarities were not superficial or coincidental. Rather, ITC’s roundel device — a prominent design feature on its cigarette sticks — had been closely mimicked by the defendants. Such imitation, the Court said, could mislead consumers into believing that the infringing products were associated with or licensed by ITC. Given this, ITC had made out a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The Court was satisfied that if an injunction is not granted, ITC would suffer irreparable harm, including dilution of its brand and erosion of goodwill, while the balance of convenience clearly favored granting protection to ITC.
Accordingly, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants — including manufacturers and suppliers — from engaging in the production, sale, advertisement, or distribution of cigarettes under the marks “Gold Flame” and “Gold Fighter,” or under any other name or packaging that is deceptively similar to ITC’s “Gold Flake” trademark or its associated trade dress. The Court also allowed ITC to appoint Local Commissioners to search the premises of the defendants, seize infringing products, and collect relevant documents and packaging material to preserve evidence.
This decision reflects the Court’s recognition of the strong reputation and long-standing goodwill associated with the “Gold Flake” brand. The Court underscored that the use of very similar names and packaging by other cigarette manufacturers threatens to confuse or mislead customers, and thereby undermines the distinctive identity of ITC’s flagship product. By stepping in at this preliminary stage, the Court has granted protection to safeguard ITC's intellectual property rights while allowing for a full trial on the merits of the case in future hearings.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.