Case Name: Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Ltd.) v. Neeraj Food Products
Citation: CS (COMM) 393/2018
Court: Delhi High Court
Corum/Judges: Justice. Prathiba M. Singh
Introduction
Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Ltd.) v. Neeraj Food Products stands as a landmark judgment in Indian IP jurisprudence, especially in the context of trade dress infringement. It highlights the robust and comprehensive protection offered to well-known brands in cases involving passing off, deceptive similarity, and unauthorised replication of packaging and visual identity. This case comment explores the legal foundation of the decision, offering a clear and concise analysis of the judgment.
On 26 July 2022, the Delhi High Court gave a landmark judgement on the protracted legal battle between Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Ltd.) and Neeraj Food Products, setting a strong precedent against the unauthorised and unethical use of registered copyrights and trademarks. The court assessed whether the product “James Bond” chocolate, a product of Neeraj Food Products, closely resembling its packaging and appearance to “Gems”, a famous chocolate of the Cadbury brand, violates intellectual property laws. The case also presents an interesting usage of Res Ipsa Loquitur and signifies its importance.
Facts of the case
In the present case, plaintiffs Cadbury India Ltd. and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Limited, well-known global chocolate brands, claim ownership of the mark ‘CADBURY GEMS’/‘GEMS.’ They allege that Neeraj Food Products, a sole proprietorship of Mr. Charan Das, launched a product called “James Bond” chocolate, which mimics the colour scheme, packaging, and branding of “GEMS.” This, according to the plaintiffs, constitutes clear trade dress infringement. They further argue that even the name “James Bond” was derived from their fictional character “Gems Bond,” used in product advertising during the 1980s, and originally owned under the name Hindustan Cocoa Products.
Prominent Issues
- Whether Neeraj Food Products’ use of the name “JAMES BOND” and similar packaging constituted trademark infringement and passing off?
- Determining whether Cadbury’s “GEMS” had acquired a distinct reputation and goodwill in the market.
- Determining whether the similarity between the two products would likely deceive or confuse consumers.
Reasoning
The Delhi High Court meticulously analysed the visual, structural, and phonetic similarities between the products and their impact on the intended consumers, mainly children and whether the visible similarities were mere coincidental or intentionally deceptive. The court acknowledged that, as the primary consumers were children, they were less likely to scrutinise minor differences and likely to confuse between them brands, thereby posing a ‘high likelihood of confusion.’ The court also reasoned that trade dress protection extended well beyond the name to the packaging, fonts, and packaging shapes, and the claim of the defendants of the similarities, like pillow packing and packaging being incidental to the confectionary business, lacked reasonable justifications and could not explain the similar colour patterns.
We also find the court using the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur to grant an interim injunction against the defendants in 2007, also shifting the burden of proof, which usually is on the plaintiffs, onto the defendants, as the facts per se were in favour of the plaintiffs.
Judgement
The court gave a decision in favour of the plaintiffs, granting a permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants. Substantial damages and litigation costs were awarded to the plaintiffs. The actual cost of Rs. 15,86,928/- was to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, the amount including the cost of proceedings was to be paid within 3 months of the grant of the order. Moreover, all pending applications were disposed of.
Critique of the judgment
The court delivered a pro-consumer judgment with strong legal reasoning. It firmly discouraged attempts to override registered trademarks and copyrights. However, the 15-year duration of the case cannot be ignored. The interim injunction in 2007 helped prevent major losses. Still, the delayed final verdict shows the urgent need for faster IP dispute resolution to support innovation and business growth.
The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs, but the amount was modest. This failed to create a strong deterrent against future violations. In commercial IP cases involving willful misconduct, courts should consider awarding aggravated or exemplary damages to send a stronger message.
Impact of The Trade Dress Infringement
The judgment in Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Neeraj Food Products sets a strong precedent in Indian Intellectual Property law. It reinforces the value of injunctive relief, trade dress protection, and consumer-focused legal reasoning. The case also highlights the critical role of interim injunctions in IP disputes. Such injunctions act as a shield, helping prevent losses during lengthy court battles.
The judgment reinforces that trade dress is not just decorative it functions as a valid source identifier. As a result, elements like packaging, shape, and colour must be holistically considered in infringement claims.
We also witnessed a new consumer-centric view considered by the court in assessing the likelihood of confusion and the possibility of deception. As the product here was intended for child consumers, a lower degree of distinguishing ability was expected of them.
Conclusion
The case Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Ltd.) v. Neeraj Food Products is pivotal for Indian IP laws. The court’s ruling in favour of Cadbury shows that IP protection goes beyond just names it includes colours, packaging, phonetic similarities, and trade dress infringement. It sets clear standards for judging consumer confusion, especially in the FMCG sector. The decision recognises how consumer perception plays a key role in infringement cases. This case encourages both emerging and established businesses to actively protect their IP in India.
References
- Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Ltd.) v. Neeraj Food Products CS (COMM) 393/2018
- Jain and partners, ‘Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (Formerly Cadbury India Limited) vs Neeraj Food Products’ (28 July 2022) https://www.jainandpartners.com/news/details/100
- Manupatra articles, ‘Case Analysis of Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. V. Neeraj Food Products (Cadbury’s Gems Vs James Bond)’ (22 November 2022) https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Case-Analysis-of-Mondelez-India-Foods-Pvt-Ltd-V-Neeraj-Food-Products-Cadburys-Gems-Vs-James-Bond
- Backed by law, ‘Cadbury India Ltd. v. Neeraj Food Products’ (accessed 29 May 2025) https://backedbylaw.in/post/cadbury-india-ltd-v-neeraj-food-products
- SCC online, ‘Gems or James Bond; Delhi High Court directs compensation to Cadbury against trademark infringement by Neeraj Food Products’ (July 28 2022) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/07/28/gems-bond-or-james-bond-delhi-high-court-directs-compensation-to-cadbury-against-trademark-infringement-by-neeraj-food-products/
TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT INDIA
July 1, 2025
Vibodh Singh
National Law Institute University, Bhopal
Case Name: Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Ltd.) v. Neeraj Food Products
Citation: CS (COMM) 393/2018
Court: Delhi High Court
Corum/Judges: Justice. Prathiba M. Singh
Introduction
Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Ltd.) v. Neeraj Food Products stands as a landmark judgment in Indian IP jurisprudence, especially in the context of trade dress infringement. It highlights the robust and comprehensive protection offered to well-known brands in cases involving passing off, deceptive similarity, and unauthorised replication of packaging and visual identity. This case comment explores the legal foundation of the decision, offering a clear and concise analysis of the judgment.
On 26 July 2022, the Delhi High Court gave a landmark judgement on the protracted legal battle between Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Ltd.) and Neeraj Food Products, setting a strong precedent against the unauthorised and unethical use of registered copyrights and trademarks. The court assessed whether the product “James Bond” chocolate, a product of Neeraj Food Products, closely resembling its packaging and appearance to “Gems”, a famous chocolate of the Cadbury brand, violates intellectual property laws. The case also presents an interesting usage of Res Ipsa Loquitur and signifies its importance.
Facts of the case
In the present case, plaintiffs Cadbury India Ltd. and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Limited, well-known global chocolate brands, claim ownership of the mark ‘CADBURY GEMS’/‘GEMS.’ They allege that Neeraj Food Products, a sole proprietorship of Mr. Charan Das, launched a product called “James Bond” chocolate, which mimics the colour scheme, packaging, and branding of “GEMS.” This, according to the plaintiffs, constitutes clear trade dress infringement. They further argue that even the name “James Bond” was derived from their fictional character “Gems Bond,” used in product advertising during the 1980s, and originally owned under the name Hindustan Cocoa Products.
Prominent Issues
Reasoning
The Delhi High Court meticulously analysed the visual, structural, and phonetic similarities between the products and their impact on the intended consumers, mainly children and whether the visible similarities were mere coincidental or intentionally deceptive. The court acknowledged that, as the primary consumers were children, they were less likely to scrutinise minor differences and likely to confuse between them brands, thereby posing a ‘high likelihood of confusion.’ The court also reasoned that trade dress protection extended well beyond the name to the packaging, fonts, and packaging shapes, and the claim of the defendants of the similarities, like pillow packing and packaging being incidental to the confectionary business, lacked reasonable justifications and could not explain the similar colour patterns.
We also find the court using the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur to grant an interim injunction against the defendants in 2007, also shifting the burden of proof, which usually is on the plaintiffs, onto the defendants, as the facts per se were in favour of the plaintiffs.
Judgement
The court gave a decision in favour of the plaintiffs, granting a permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants. Substantial damages and litigation costs were awarded to the plaintiffs. The actual cost of Rs. 15,86,928/- was to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, the amount including the cost of proceedings was to be paid within 3 months of the grant of the order. Moreover, all pending applications were disposed of.
Critique of the judgment
The court delivered a pro-consumer judgment with strong legal reasoning. It firmly discouraged attempts to override registered trademarks and copyrights. However, the 15-year duration of the case cannot be ignored. The interim injunction in 2007 helped prevent major losses. Still, the delayed final verdict shows the urgent need for faster IP dispute resolution to support innovation and business growth.
The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs, but the amount was modest. This failed to create a strong deterrent against future violations. In commercial IP cases involving willful misconduct, courts should consider awarding aggravated or exemplary damages to send a stronger message.
Impact of The Trade Dress Infringement
The judgment in Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Neeraj Food Products sets a strong precedent in Indian Intellectual Property law. It reinforces the value of injunctive relief, trade dress protection, and consumer-focused legal reasoning. The case also highlights the critical role of interim injunctions in IP disputes. Such injunctions act as a shield, helping prevent losses during lengthy court battles.
The judgment reinforces that trade dress is not just decorative it functions as a valid source identifier. As a result, elements like packaging, shape, and colour must be holistically considered in infringement claims.
We also witnessed a new consumer-centric view considered by the court in assessing the likelihood of confusion and the possibility of deception. As the product here was intended for child consumers, a lower degree of distinguishing ability was expected of them.
Conclusion
The case Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Ltd.) v. Neeraj Food Products is pivotal for Indian IP laws. The court’s ruling in favour of Cadbury shows that IP protection goes beyond just names it includes colours, packaging, phonetic similarities, and trade dress infringement. It sets clear standards for judging consumer confusion, especially in the FMCG sector. The decision recognises how consumer perception plays a key role in infringement cases. This case encourages both emerging and established businesses to actively protect their IP in India.
References
Other Recent Blog Posts
TRADEMARK REVOCATION: LANDMARK RULING
Trademark revocation battle between Supermac’s and McDonald’s reshapes EU IP law, setting a precedent for small business rights.
MASTERING BRAZIL TRADEMARK APPLICATION
Learn how to file a trademark application in Brazil, understand legal steps, required documents, and international protection.
TRADE DRESS: VISUAL IP POWER
Explore how trade dress protects a product’s shape, colour, and packaging, preserving brand identity in competitive markets.
TRADEMARK TRAPS IN CHINA EXPOSED
From squatting to subclass snags, this guide helps you dodge trademark traps in China is infamous for. File smart, protect fast.
WHEN COLOURS BECOME TRADEMARKS
Learn how “when colours become trademarks” shifts branding and IP law, with global cases, legal tests, and protection challenges.
FAMOUS TRADEMARK PROTECTION WIN
Louis Vuitton secures major win for famous trademark protection, proving brand rights extend beyond industry lines and borders.