The Delhi High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Varun Beverages Limited and the other defendant from using the disputed SMOOTH mark in the manner complained of by Parle Agro Private Limited.

The Court's order was passed at the interim stage on the basis of a prima facie assessment in the trademark dispute concerning the marks SMOODH and SMOOTH.

Background of the Dispute

Parle Agro Private Limited is the proprietor of the trademark SMOODH, which is used in relation to dairy-based beverage products.

According to the plaint, Parle Agro adopted the trademark SMOODH in 2020 and launched dairy-based flavoured drinks under the mark in 2021. The company also relied upon its registrations for SMOODH and formative marks in Classes 29, 32 and 35, along with substantial sales and promotional activities associated with the mark.

The dispute arose after Parle Agro became aware of the proposed use of the mark SMOOTH by Varun Beverages Limited for a proposed dairy-based yoghurt drink.

SMOODH vs SMOOTH

The competing marks before the Court were:

Parle Agro contended that SMOOTH was deceptively similar to its registered SMOODH trademark, particularly because of the visual, phonetic and structural similarity between the two marks.

One of the central arguments was that the defendant had retained the overall structure of SMOODH while substituting the letter "D" with "T".

Court's Prima Facie View

After considering the rival marks and the material placed before it, the Delhi High Court found that Parle Agro had made out a prima facie case for interim protection.

The Court observed that the defendants had carefully and cautiously substituted the letter "D" with "T", describing the adoption at the prima facie stage as "nothing but smart copying."

The Court also considered the proposed product packaging and observed that the manner in which the mark SMOOTH was presented, including its prominence in comparison with the defendants' own brand name CALPIS, strengthened the plaintiff's case regarding possible association or commercial nexus.

Goodwill and Reputation of SMOODH

Parle Agro placed before the Court details relating to the sales, promotional expenditure, social media presence, celebrity endorsements and publicity associated with the SMOODH marks.

The Court considered these circumstances while assessing the goodwill and reputation claimed by Parle Agro and the potential impact of the proposed use of a deceptively similar mark for related dairy-based products.

Interim Injunction Granted

The Delhi High Court accordingly granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants.

The defendants, along with their relevant officers, distributors, dealers and agents, were restrained from using SMOOTH or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to Parle Agro's registered SMOODH trademark and formative marks, in a manner amounting to infringement or passing off.

The Court's order also addressed the disputed product packaging where the impugned mark was displayed more prominently than the defendants' own brand name.

Important Trademark Principle

The dispute highlights that trademark comparison is not limited to checking whether two marks are spelled exactly the same.

Depending upon the facts of a case, courts may consider the overall commercial impression, including:

• Visual similarity
• Phonetic similarity
• Structural similarity
• Nature of the goods
• Trade channels
• Consumer perception
• Goodwill and reputation
• Manner of adoption
• Packaging and product presentation
• Likelihood of confusion or association

Why the Case Is Important

The SMOODH vs SMOOTH dispute is significant for trademark owners and practitioners because it demonstrates that a minor alteration in the spelling of an existing mark may not necessarily avoid a finding of deceptive similarity.

The case also demonstrates the importance of conducting a proper trademark clearance search before adopting a new brand, particularly where the proposed mark is intended for identical or closely related goods.

Important Note

The order dated 18 August 2026 is an interim/ad-interim order. The Court's observations at this stage are prima facie findings and should not be treated as a final adjudication of the entire trademark dispute after trial.