Facts
The Plaintiff, established in 1938 and derived from a clinic started in 1905, is a major manufacturer of Ayurvedic and Unani medicines operating under the house mark "MULTANI".
Source reference: para. 2The Plaintiff has secured multiple registrations for the mark across various classes in India and internationally.
Source reference: paras. 5-6In August 2024, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant’s trademark application for a deceptively similar mark used for identical skin and hair care products.
Source reference: para. 10The Plaintiff filed for a permanent injunction and a declaration of "MULTANI" as a well-known trademark.
Source reference: paras. 1, 11During proceedings, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement on June 12, 2025, leading the Plaintiff to press only for the "well-known" status declaration.
Source reference: paras. 11-12Issues
1. Whether the trademark "MULTANI" qualifies as a "well-known trademark" under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, specifically in relation to Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical Products.
Source reference: para. 13Law Applied
Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which defines a well-known trademark as one which has become so to the substantial segment of the public which uses such goods or receives such services.
Source reference: para. 13The "five-factor test" under Section 11(6) of the Act, which mandates consideration of: (i) knowledge or recognition of the mark in the relevant section of the public; (ii) the duration, extent, and geographical area of use; (iii) the duration, extent, and geographical area of promotion; (iv) the duration and geographical area of registrations/applications; and (v) the record of successful enforcement of rights.
Source reference: para. 14Section 11(7) regarding the criteria for determining whether a trademark is known in a relevant section of the public.
Source reference: para. 14Reasoning
The Court analyzed the evidence across the five statutory factors. It noted the Plaintiff’s 86-year history and the distribution of products via 1,000 distributors and major e-commerce platforms.
Source reference: para. 14(I)Extensive promotional efforts were evidenced by advertisements dating back to 1938, celebrity endorsements by figures such as Boman Irani and Soha Ali Khan, and significant annual advertising expenditure.
Source reference: paras. 7, 14(III)The Court observed the mark's extensive geographical reach via exports to countries like Russia and Uzbekistan, and sales revenues reaching ₹266 Crores in FY 2023-24.
Source reference: para. 14(II)The Plaintiff demonstrated a diligent record of enforcement through numerous successful oppositions against third-party misuse.
Source reference: para. 14(V)The Court found that the Plaintiff being one of only 50 companies out of 9,000 in India to hold WHO-GMP certification further cemented the brand's reputation and distinctiveness.
Source reference: para. 15Holding
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, holding that the trademark "MULTANI" satisfies the criteria set out in Section 11(6) and 11(7) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Consequently, the Court passed a decree of declaration recognizing "MULTANI" as a ‘well-known’ trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) in respect of Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical Products.
Source reference: para. 17The suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff in terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the Plaintiff was held entitled to a refund of the entire Court fees.
Source reference: paras. 12, 19Original Court PDF
Multani Pharmaceuticals LimitedvsMayuri Bhupal Bhamare
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in