--- title: "Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction Protecting Parle Agro’s ‘SMOODH’ Trademark Against ‘SMOOTH’ for Dairy-Based Yogurt Drinks" date: 2026-09-21 author: "King Stubb & Kasiva" url: https://ksandk.com/newsletter/smoodh-smooth-trademark-injunction/ --- # Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction Protecting Parle Agro’s ‘SMOODH’ Trademark Against ‘SMOOTH’ for Dairy-Based Yogurt Drinks Posted On - 21 September, 2026 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva ## **Summary** In Parle Agro Private Limited v. Varun Beverages Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 897/2026, the Delhi High Court granted an *ex-parte ad interim injunction* restraining the Defendants from using the mark SMOOTH / ![](https://ksandk.com/wp-content/uploads/11-1.png) or any deceptively similar mark in relation to dairy-based yogurt drinks, finding the mark prima facie nearly identical to the Plaintiff’s registered SMOODH / ![](https://ksandk.com/wp-content/uploads/22-1.png) trademarks. The Court noted that the Defendants had substituted the letter ‘D’ with ‘T’, which it prima facie characterised as ‘smart copying, while the rival products, trade channels and consumer base were common. The Court also found significance in the Defendants’ packaging, where SMOOTH was displayed prominently while their own brand CALPIS appeared in a smaller font “ ![](https://ksandk.com/wp-content/uploads/33-1.png) ![](https://ksandk.com/wp-content/uploads/44.png) thereby increasing the likelihood of an association with the Plaintiff. ## **Facts of the Case** Parle Agro Private Limited, incorporated in 1985, is an Indian beverage company engaged in the manufacture, marketing and export of various beverages and food products under several brands. The Plaintiff adopted the trademark SMOODH in 2020 and launched dairy-based flavoured drinks under the mark in 2021, initially including Chocolate Milk and Toffee Caramel variants. Subsequently, owing to the popularity of the products, the Plaintiff expanded its range of dairy-based beverages under the SMOODH mark. The Plaintiff obtained registrations for SMOODH and its formative marks in Classes 29, 32 and 35. The Plaintiff claimed substantial goodwill and reputation arising from continuous use and extensive promotion of the mark since 2021. The Plaintiff also relied upon widespread publicity, online and electronic coverage and celebrity endorsements.  On 24.07.2026, the Plaintiff came across an article concerning the Defendants’ intended launch of a ready-to-drink, dairy-based yogurt product in India under the mark SMOOTH. The Defendants had announced the launch on 18.06.2026, and the Plaintiff approached the Court before the product was launched in the Indian market. The Plaintiff alleged that SMOOTH was phonetically, visually and structurally deceptively similar/nearly identical to SMOODH and was intended to exploit the goodwill associated with the Plaintiff’s mark. ## **Issue before the Court** Whether the Defendants’ proposed use of the mark SMOOTH for dairy-based yogurt drinks was prima facie likely to infringe the Plaintiff’s registered SMOODH trademarks and amount to passing off, warranting an *ex-parte ad interim injunction*. ## **Findings of the Court** The Court, upon examining the rival marks and the Defendants’ packaging, held that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of an *ex-parte ad interim injunction*. The balance of convenience was also found to lie in favour of the Plaintiff, with the Court observing that failure to grant interim protection was likely to cause irreparable harm. The Court noted that, as the registered proprietor of the SMOODH marks, the Plaintiff was entitled to the statutory rights conferred under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, including the right to seek protection against unauthorised use of the registered marks. Against this statutory right, the Defendants had adopted SMOOTH, which was prima facie nearly identical/deceptively similar to SMOODH. A significant factor was the manner of adoption. The Court observed that the Defendants had “carefully and cautiously substituted the letter ‘D’ to ‘T’”, which was prima facie indicative of an attempt to come as close as possible to the Plaintiff’s mark. The Court further found that the commonality of the trade channels and consumer base created a strong likelihood of confusion. The Court also considered the overall presentation of the Defendants’ product packaging. While the Defendants’ product was branded CALPIS, the word CALPIS was displayed in a smaller font, while SMOOTH was given greater prominence. The Court considered this packaging strategy relevant to the likelihood of consumers perceiving an association or commercial nexus with the Plaintiff’s SMOODH products. The Plaintiff’s substantial sales, promotional expenditure, social media presence, celebrity endorsements and extensive publicity were found to reflect the goodwill and reputation acquired by the SMOODH marks within a relatively short period. The Court held that adoption of a near-identical mark for an identical product indicated an intention to encash upon the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation, thereby giving rise not only to infringement but also to a case of passing off. ## **Held** The Delhi High Court granted an *ex-parte ad interim injunction* restraining the Defendants, their proprietors, partners, directors, officers, distributors, dealers, agents and all persons acting on their behalf from using SMOOTH and/or any other trademark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered SMOODH trademark and its formative marks. “The Defendants were also restrained from using the impugned product packaging featuring SMOOTH prominently in a manner amounting to infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks and/or passing off. The injunction was directed to operate until the next date of hearing. ## **Conclusion** The decision demonstrates the Court’s willingness to grant immediate protection where a later entrant adopts a mark that is near-identical to an established trademark for identical goods, particularly where the competing marks are presented through common trade channels and to the same consumer base. Importantly, the decision highlights that minor orthographic alterations will not necessarily distinguish a competing mark where the overall commercial impression remains deceptively similar. The Court’s observation that replacing “D” with “T” constituted “smart copying”, coupled with its consideration of the prominence given to the impugned mark on the packaging, underscores the importance of assessing the overall manner of adoption and presentation, and not merely undertaking a letter-by-letter comparison of competing marks. *Last Updated on 21 September, 2026* Get King Stubb & Kasiva’s legal updates in your Google feed[![Add King Stubb & Kasiva as a preferred source on Google](https://ksandk.com/wp-content/uploads/google_preferred_source_badge_light_en@2x.png)](https://www.google.com/preferences/source?q=https://ksandk.com/) --- ## Office Locations - [New Delhi](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-delhi/) (HQ): +91-11-41318190 | info@ksandk.com - [Mumbai](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-mumbai/): 3 offices (Nariman Point, Lower Parel, Andheri) | mumbai@ksandk.com - [Bangalore](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-bangalore/): bangalore@ksandk.com - [Chennai](https://ksandk.com/locations/chennai/): chennai@ksandk.com - [Hyderabad](https://ksandk.com/locations/hyderabad/): hyderabad@ksandk.com - [Pune](https://ksandk.com/locations/pune/): pune@ksandk.com - [Kochi](https://ksandk.com/locations/kochi/): kochi@ksandk.com ## Contact - [Contact Page](https://ksandk.com/contact-us/) - General: info@ksandk.com | +91-11-41318190 - WhatsApp: +91-7428567444 - [Privacy Statement](https://ksandk.com/privacy-statement/) - [Terms of Use](https://ksandk.com/terms-of-use/)