Heinz Italia v. Dabur India: GLUCON-D and GLUCOSE-D

Citation & Court

M/s. Heinz Italia & Anr. v. M/s. Dabur India Ltd., Supreme Court of India (B.P. Singh and Harjit Singh Bedi JJ.), Civil Appeal No. 2756 of 2007 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 59 of 2006), decided 18 May 2007; (2007) 6 SCC 1

The Dispute

GLUCON-D, used by Glaxo since 1940 and registered in 1975 under the 1958 Act, was assigned with goodwill to Heinz Italia in 1994. Dabur had sold GLUCOSE-D since 1989, and from 2000 used packaging with an almost identical colour scheme and a happy family on the pack. Heinz sued for infringement of its registered mark and of copyright in the packaging artwork. The trial court refused an interim injunction, holding 'glucose' generic and the packs different, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court agreed in 2005. Before the Supreme Court, Dabur argued that two courts had refused discretionary relief and that Heinz had delayed.

What the Court Held

• The Wander v Antox caution against disturbing interim orders refused by two courts did not apply where the claimant's prior use, here GLUCON-D since 1940, was clear on the record.
• In passing off, similarities rather than differences are weighed, and GLUCON-D and GLUCOSE-D, both glucose products, have remarkable phonetic similarity.
• Packaging is judged by colour scheme and overall effect; a pictured family of four instead of three did not distinguish otherwise near-identical packs.
• Dabur's repeated small changes to its packaging were treated as an attempt to keep misleading buyers and to make protection harder; both lower orders were set aside and the interim application allowed, with the generic-word issue left for evidence at trial.

How to Use This Case

Cite it when an established mark faces a phonetically close rival with imitative packaging, especially where the defendant points to minor pictorial differences. It supports three interim-stage arguments: compare overall colour scheme and effect rather than isolated details; clear prior use can justify appellate interference even after two courts refuse relief; and a pattern of small, successive packaging changes can indicate an intent to stay close to the original. Placing every version of the defendant's packaging before the court, as Heinz did, lets the judge see that drift.

Important Limit

This is an interim order that does not bind the trial judge, and it grants relief by reference to a prayer clause the judgment does not reproduce. Whether 'glucose' is generic, raised under Godfrey Phillips, was left for evidence. Decided under the 1958 Act; the infringement and relief provisions are now sections 29 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Judgment Source

Read the judgment. For other cases on the same issue, see trademark case laws in India, by issue.