ITC Limited v. Nestlé India — "Magic Masala" Trademark Case
Citation & Court
ITC Limited v. Nestlé India Ltd., Madras High Court, judgment dated 10 June 2020, disposing of a suit filed in 2013.
Need help with this?
Facing an examination report, a show-cause hearing or an opposition? See our trademark objection reply and opposition service. We are a trademark consultant in Ahmedabad working with businesses across Gujarat.
The Dispute
ITC used "Magic Masala" as a flavour variant name on its Sunfeast Yippee! instant noodles. When Nestlé India began using "Magical Masala" for a flavour of Maggi noodles, ITC sued, alleging the expression was phonetically similar to its own and amounted to passing off.
What the Court Held
The Madras High Court ruled in Nestlé's favour. It found that "Magic Masala" and similar expressions were already common usage in the trade before ITC adopted the term, and that on ITC's own packaging the words functioned as a flavour descriptor rather than as a standalone brand or sub-brand — so they had not acquired secondary meaning pointing exclusively to ITC. The Court held that laudatory, flavour-descriptive expressions like this cannot be monopolised by one manufacturer.
How to Use This in Your Reply
Use this on the applicant's side of an opposition or objection reply where the cited "prior" mark is itself a common flavour, quality, or descriptive term used across an entire product category — argue, as ITC's opponent successfully did, that trade-common usage defeats an exclusivity claim absent strong evidence of brand-specific secondary meaning. Equally, if you are the one asserting exclusivity in such a term, this case shows exactly what kind of proof you will need to gather first.
Key takeaway: A term common across a trade, used as a descriptor rather than prominently as a brand, will not support a passing-off or exclusivity claim.
Facing this exact situation in your own filing?
Send us your examination report, opposition notice, or hearing date — we'll tell you how this applies.