Britannia Industries Limited instituted a suit before the Delhi High Court against Shri Swastik Organics & Ors., alleging infringement of trademark and copyright, passing off, and allied violations. Along with the suit, Britannia sought interim injunctive relief restraining the Defendants from using any trademark, shape, or name identical or deceptively similar to its registered “Little Hearts” trademark and distinctive three-dimensional product shape.

Plaintiff’s Case

1. Britannia Industries Limited is one of India’s leading food companies, in continuous operation since 1918. The company adopted the trademark “Little Hearts” in 1988 and, in 1993, introduced its iconic sugar-coated, heart-shaped biscuit under the said mark . “Little Hearts” has since become one of Britannia’s flagship brands.
2. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the “Little Hearts” word mark with a user claim dating back to 1993. In addition, Britannia holds registrations for the three-dimensional shape mark , as well as multiple registrations covering marks incorporating “Little Hearts” and its associated packaging and trade dress in India. The Plaintiff’s products enjoy extensive sales and are distributed both offline and through various third-party e-commerce platforms.
3. In December 2025, Britannia discovered that a product titled “Little Hearts Biscuits” bearing the mark “Little Hearts” was being offered for sale on the e-commerce platform operated by Defendant No. 5, Amazon. Upon purchasing the impugned product, the Plaintiff ascertained that Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were jointly involved in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of the infringing goods.
4. Britannia alleged that the Defendants’ conduct was marked by clear dishonesty. Not only had the Defendants adopted an identical mark, but they had also replicated the Plaintiff’s distinctive heart-shaped biscuit. The bad faith was further evident from the Amazon listing, where the impugned product was expressly described as “Britannia Little Hearts”, displayed in packaging resembling Britannia’s distinctive gold and red trade dress, and accompanied by images in which copyright vests with the Plaintiff.
5. According to Britannia, the adoption of an identical mark and shape was bound to cause confusion among consumers and constituted a deliberate attempt to mislead the public into believing that the impugned products originated from, or were associated with, the Plaintiff.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

Despite service of notice, the Defendants failed to enter appearance, prompting the Court to proceed ex-parte.

Upon examining the rival marks and product shapes, the Court held that a plain comparison clearly demonstrated that the impugned mark “Little Hearts” and the impugned three-dimensional shape were identical to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark and shape.

The Court placed significant reliance on the Defendants’ product listing on Amazon, where the impugned goods were categorically represented as “Britannia Little Hearts” and displayed using copyrighted images belonging to the Plaintiff. This, the Court observed, amounted to an admission and constituted a blatant act of dishonest adoption. The use of an identical mark and product shape further revealed a mala fide intent to misrepresent the origin of the goods and unfairly exploit the goodwill and reputation painstakingly built by Britannia.

The Court characterized the matter as a clear case of triple identity, noting that the marks were virtually identical, the goods were identical, and the trade channels and consumer base overlapped entirely. As the prior adopter, prior user, and registered proprietor of the “Little Hearts” trademark and shape, the Plaintiff was held entitled to both statutory and common-law protection. From the perspective of an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the likelihood of confusion and association with the Plaintiff was found to be inevitable.

Relief Granted

In view of the above, the Delhi High Court concluded that Britannia had established a strong prima facie case warranting the grant of injunctive relief. Accordingly, Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, along with all persons acting on their behalf, were restrained from manufacturing, using, selling, marketing, advertising, or otherwise dealing in goods bearing the impugned “Little Hearts” mark or shape, or any identical or deceptively similar mark or shape, as well as from using the Plaintiff’s copyrighted images, until further orders.

Defendant No. 5, Amazon, was directed to delist and take down all infringing products of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from its platform.