IP Case Law › Trade Marks › Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. v. Ferrero S.p.A. & Ors.
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Trade Marks Act, 1999 (infringement; counterfeit goods; delivery up)
Brief facts
Ferrero, owner of NUTELLA, obtained a decree dated 19 November 2025 in CS(COMM) 65/2023 against the appellants in respect of jars imitating the NUTELLA jar. The appellants appealed, and the dispute in appeal concerned what was to happen to the seized jars.
Issues before the Court
Whether the seized jars, on release, could be put to other use.
Court's findings
The respondents fairly stated that they would destroy the jars. The Bench modified the impugned orders to that limited extent (paras 23-24).
Decision
Impugned orders modified: jars released to Ferrero are to be destroyed and not put to any other use, commercial or otherwise; appellants entitled to have a representative present at destruction on 17 January 2026; appeal disposed of.
Subsequent history: This Division Bench order modifies the Single Judge's decree of 19 November 2025 (Ferrero S.p.A. v. Abhimanyu Prakash, CS(COMM) 65/2023) on the disposal of seized goods.
Key legal principle / ratio
Seized infringing articles bearing an imitation of a protected trade dress should be destroyed rather than released for other use.
Important paragraph references
Paras 23-26.
Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.
Keywords
Appeal Counterfeit Goods Destruction of Seized Goods Jar Shape NUTELLA Trade Dress
Read the judgment
More Trade Marks judgments
Trade Marks
Acqua Minerals Limited v. Pramod Borse & Anr.
Registration of a domain name identical or deceptively similar to another's well-known trade mark, by a person having no legitimate connection with that mark and who seeks to profit from its transfer, amounts to bad faith cybersqu…
Bad Faith AdoptionCybersquattingDomain NamesPassing OffTrade MarksADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking OrderTrade MarksAlkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt. Ltd.
A mark that describes the nature of the product, such as A TO Z for a complete multivitamin, is descriptive and generic and does not ordinarily support an interim injunction.
A TO ZDescriptive MarksGeneric MarksMultivitamins