Punjab and Haryana High Court Stays Injunction Against Radico Khaitan in “Kashmyr” Trademark Dispute

 

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed an injunction order previously issued by the Commercial Court in Karnal, which had restrained Radico Khaitan Ltd. from using the trademark “KASHMYR” for its liquor products. The injunction was granted in a case filed by Piccadilly Agro Industries Ltd., which alleged that Radico’s mark “KASHMYR” was deceptively similar to its registered trademarks “CASHMIR” and “CASHMERE.”

Piccadilly Agro contended that it had conceived and registered the trademark “CASHMERE” in 2015 and later launched the vodka brand “CASHMIR” in May 2025. According to the company, Radico Khaitan introduced its “KASHMYR” brand in July 2025 for similar alcoholic beverages at comparable prices. Piccadilly argued that the use of a nearly identical name would likely confuse consumers and amount to trademark infringement, as both marks were phonetically and visually similar.

Radico Khaitan challenged the injunction, asserting that the Commercial Court had no territorial jurisdiction since the company did not produce or sell its products in Haryana and lacked an excise license there. The company also maintained that Piccadilly’s marks were either pending registration or used very recently, while Radico’s product had distinct packaging, labeling, and trade dress that set it apart from Piccadilly’s brands.

After considering the arguments, the High Court observed that the case involved several key issues requiring detailed examination, including whether the Haryana courts had jurisdiction, whether Piccadilly had established prior use of its mark, and whether “KASHMYR” and “CASHMIR” were deceptively similar in appearance or pronunciation. The Court concluded that these matters warranted a full hearing rather than an immediate injunction. Consequently, it stayed the operation of the Commercial Court’s order, allowing Radico Khaitan to continue using its “KASHMYR” trademark pending final adjudication.

The High Court emphasized that interim injunctions in trademark disputes must be granted cautiously and only after a careful evaluation of factors such as territorial jurisdiction, prior user rights, and the likelihood of consumer confusion. The decision reflects the Court’s balanced approach toward protecting intellectual property rights while ensuring that legitimate commercial activities are not unfairly restrained.

The matter will be heard next on November 13, 2025. The outcome is expected to have broader implications for how Indian courts interpret phonetic similarity and jurisdictional boundaries in trademark disputes, particularly in industries such as alcoholic beverages, where brand recognition and consumer perception play a crucial role.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community