Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 09-10-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant/Defendant – Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (address: Amul Dairy, Road, Anand‑388001). Respondent/Plaintiff – Asian Beverage Private Limited (address: 15/430, Dr. Alagappa Road, Purasawakkam, Chennai 600084), represented by authorized signatory C. Vijayakumar.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Commercial suit (C.S. (Comm.Div.) No.161 of 2022) alleging trademark infringement and passing off. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant’s use of the mark “AMUL TRU” for identical or similar products infringes its registered trademark “TRUE VALLEY”.
  • Trademark Details: Plaintiff asserted continuous use of “TRUE VALLEY” since 26‑01‑2012 and registration No. 2276842 in Class 32. Defendant asserted adoption and use of “AMUL TRU” since 02‑03‑2019 and claimed registration of its own marks (specific numbers not cited).
  • Allegations: Plaintiff alleged deceptive similarity between “TRUE” and “TRU”, likelihood of confusion, and passing off. Defendant denied infringement, argued that “AMUL TRU” is independently registered, that the plaintiff’s registration covers only a composite label, and that the prominent “AMUL” house‑mark eliminates confusion.
  • Procedural Contentions:
  • Defendant argued the suit is defective for non‑joinder of Gujarat Co‑operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (GCMMF) and for failure to serve notice under Section 167 of the Gujarat Co‑operative Societies Act, 1961.
  • Plaintiff contended that Section 167 is inapplicable, that GCMMF is not a necessary party, and that the dispute requires a trial to assess similarity, goodwill, and delay.
  • Counsel Submissions: Defendant’s counsel relied on precedents (Syrma Technology v Powerwave, Godaddy.com v Puravankara, Pernod Ricard v Karanveer Singh Chhabra, Sections 28(3) & 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999) and argued that the suit lacks a real prospect of success and that oral evidence is unnecessary. Plaintiff’s counsel cited PhonePe v Ezy Services and argued that dominant features of the marks should be compared.
  • Legal Issues Considered:

1. Whether non‑joinder of GCMMF makes the suit defective.

2. Whether the suit was instituted without the statutory notice required by Section 167 of the Gujarat Co‑operative Societies Act, 1961.

3. Whether summary judgment under Order XIII‑A CPC is appropriate.

Court Reasoning

  • Non‑joinder: The Court held that a “necessary party” is one without whose presence an effective decree cannot be passed. The involvement of GCMMF as a marketer does not make it a necessary party; therefore, the objection of non‑joinder was rejected.
  • Section 167 Notice: The Court explained that Section 167 mandates a written notice to the Registrar of the society and a two‑month waiting period before instituting a suit that touches the society’s business. The present suit concerns the society’s manufacture and sale of beverages under “AMUL TRU”, which is part of its business; consequently, the notice requirement is attracted. No notice was served, and the statutory period was not observed. The Court rejected the argument that a State enactment cannot affect rights under the central Trade Marks Act, finding no repugnancy and concluding that the notice condition is mandatory.
  • Summary Judgment: Under Order XIII‑A Rule 3, summary judgment is appropriate when the plaintiff has no real prospect of success and there is no compelling reason to await oral evidence. The Court found that the lack of statutory notice makes the suit non‑maintainable, a legal defect that cannot be cured by oral evidence. Hence, the requirements for summary judgment were satisfied.
  • Merits: The Court expressly noted that issues relating to the composite nature of the registration, scope of protection, deceptive similarity, prior use, goodwill, and delay were not finally determined. These matters are left for a fresh suit, if any, after compliance with the statutory notice requirement.

Final Outcome

  • The application A.No. 770 of 2023 is allowed.
  • C.S. (Comm.Div.) No. 161 of 2022 is dismissed as not maintainable for non‑compliance with Section 167 of the Gujarat Co‑operative Societies Act, 1961.
  • No order as to costs.
  • The dismissal does not adjudicate the substantive trademark or passing‑off claims and does not preclude the plaintiff from instituting fresh proceedings after satisfying the statutory notice requirement, subject to limitation periods and other legal objections.

Topics: Trademark Infringement, Co‑operative Society Law