The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Goldenstuff and Beverages Private Limited and others from using the marks ‘INDIAN ZEERA’, ‘INDIAN NIMBOO’/ ‘INDIAN MOJITO’, ‘INDIAN SHIKANJI’, along with associated trade dress, packaging, labels, bottle design, taglines, and the domain name LAHORIZEERA.COM, in respect of non-alcoholic beverages and allied goods.
The Court found that the defendants, who commenced business only in January 2026, had reproduced the plaintiff’s distinctive green, yellow and white colour combination, stylized white lettering with black bordered outline, lemons and cumin motifs, slanting taglines, multi-coloured borders, and identical bottle shape with green cap. The Court held that the adoption was ex facie mala fide and bound to cause confusion among consumers.
The injunction extends to the defendants’ directors, associates, sister concerns, distributors, dealers, and agents, covering manufacturing, selling, advertising, and dealing on the internet, social media, and e-commerce platforms.
Also read E-Paid Bid Security Cannot Be Rejected for Non-Submission of Original Document: Supreme Court
Briefly, the plaintiff, Archian Foods Private Limited, filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court against Goldenstuff and Beverages Private Limited and others, alleging infringement of its trademarks, copyrights, and designs. The plaintiff’s predecessor, M/s Archian Foods, was established in 2012 as a partnership firm and was later incorporated as a company on 6 October 2021 under the Companies Act, 2013. The plaintiff is engaged in manufacturing and marketing traditional Indian flavoured non-alcoholic beverages, including soda, fruit juices, and carbonated drinks, under the ‘LAHORI’ family of marks, such as ‘LAHORI ZEERA’, ‘LAHORI NIMBOO’, ‘LAHORI KACHA AAM’, ‘LAHORI SHIKANJI’, and ‘LAHORI IMLI BANTA’.
The plaintiff claims proprietary rights over various labels, packaging, and trade dress comprising distinguishing features such as specific placement of elements, lettering, and colour combinations. The most popular product is ‘LAHORI ZEERA’, launched in 2015 and protected by a registered trademark under Class 32. While its trade dress has undergone changes over the years, the essential and prominent features, namely the colour scheme involving a combination of yellow, green and white, have been retained. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of various ‘LAHORI’ formative trademarks spread across Classes 30, 32, 16 and 35, and its gamut extends not only to packaging, trade dress, labels, trademarks, and get-up, but also to the taglines/slogans adopted by the plaintiff, namely ‘DESI HI CHANGA’, ‘APNA DESI THANDA’, and ‘HAR KOI PEERA LAHORI ZEERA’.
The plaintiff also claims to be the owner of copyright in the artistic works in the Trade Dresses/Packaging/Labels. The plaintiff has obtained Copyright Registration for the ‘LAHORI ZEERA’ Label with the tagline ‘DESI HI CHANGA!’, Copyright Registration for the ‘LAHORI ZEERA’ Label with the tagline ‘APNA DESI THANDA’, Copyright Registration for the ‘LAHORI NIMBOO’ Label, and Copyright Registration for the ‘LAHORI SHIKANJI’ Label with the tagline ‘DESI HI CHANGA’. The plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of the design of the shape and configuration of the bottle used for selling its beverages.
The net sales value for the products bearing ‘LAHORI’ formative trademarks has grown from INR 2.74 Lakhs in 2016-2017 to INR 773.63 Crores in 2025-2026, with the sales figures verified by the Chartered Accountant of the plaintiff. The plaintiff spent approximately INR 3.31 crores in the financial year 2023-24 on promotion and advertisement of goods bearing the trademarks ‘LAHORI ZEERA’, ‘LAHORI NIMBOO’, and ‘LAHORI SHIKANJI’.
It came to the plaintiff’s knowledge that defendant nos. 1 to 6 are involved in manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of non-alcoholic carbonated beverages/soft drinks under impugned marks/logos/trade dress/packaging/label/bottle/slogan as well as impugned taglines which are identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s packaging/label/get-up/bottle-dressing.
The defendants have allegedly adopted ‘INDIAN ZEERA’, ‘INDIAN NIMBOO’ / ‘INDIAN MOJITO’, and ‘INDIAN SHIKANJI’ as their marks, with comparison tables showing identical colour combinations (green, yellow and white), white capital letters in stylized manner with black bordered outline, lemons and cumin placed on either side of the mark, slanting coloured taglines, conspicuous multi-coloured borders, and identical bottle shape with green coloured cap. The defendants have also applied for registration of the mark ‘INDIAN ZEERA’ under Class 32. The defendants are new entrants in the trade, having started their business from January 2026, as borne out from their LinkedIn page.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of various ‘LAHORI’ formative trademarks spread across Classes 30, 32, 16 and 35, and that the plaintiff owns copyright in the artistic works in the Trade Dresses/ Packaging/ Labels. The sales figures have been verified by the Chartered Accountant of the plaintiff, whose certificate has been filed along with the plaint. The Court noted that on account of their extensive use, advertisement and large turnover, the trademarks/copyrights/designs of the plaintiff have acquired invaluable goodwill and reputation throughout the country.
The Court further observed that the impugned logo/trade dress/colour scheme/shape of the bottle adopted by the defendants is bound to create confusion and deception amongst the consumers, public and members of the trade, especially when the range of goods of the plaintiff and the defendants is the same. The Court noted that the adoption of identical or deceptively similar logo/trade dress/colour scheme/shape of the bottle by the defendants is ex facie mala fide, since the defendants are new entrants in the trade whereas the plaintiff is already an established player.
The Court also noted that the defendants have deliberately and consciously created a website/domain name in a manner so as to come as close as possible to the plaintiff, its goods and its business by imitating and reproducing the plaintiff’s Intellectual Property and the distinctive manner in which the plaintiff advertises/promotes its products.
