Case Name: Siddhant Ice Creams LLP & Anr. v. John Doe(s) & Ors.
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 22104 of 2026 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 328 of 2026
Date: 8 October 2026
Court: Bombay High Court
Quorum: Justice Madhav J. Jamdar
FACTS
Siddhant Ice Creams LLP and some other organizations have filed cases in the High Court of Bombay alleging trademark and copyright infringements. Plaintiff No. 1 is the holder of the marks NATURAL Family Marks, while Plaintiff No. 2 is the master franchisee and manufactures NATURAL Ice Creams and other products under these marks.
The NATURAL Ice Cream Company was established in 1984 by the late Raghunandan Kamath. It had achieved considerable goodwill and grown to 193 franchisees operating out of 42 different cities. They claim to have 51 valid trademark registrations and have even submitted particulars regarding their sales turnover and advertising costs.
Plaintiffs had contended that anonymous individuals or “John Doe” were running fictitious websites and emails under names like Mukesh Agarwal, Pankaj Agarwal, and others. These individuals, as per plaintiffs, had issued franchise letters, pretended to be associated with NATURAL Ice Creams, and had duped people out of money by offering them fictitious franchise licenses. The fictitious website, moreover, had misrepresented the name of the founder of the business.
GoDaddy.com LLC, the Department of Telecommunications, and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had been made parties to the case only to help in the execution of the court’s order relating to the blocking of misleading or infringing websites.
ISSUES
- Whether the alleged use of the NATURAL Family Marks amounted to infringement of trademarks and copyrights?
- Whether the acts of the defendants amount to passing off?
- Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for interlocutory relief?
LAW
- Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Rights acquired through registration: Provides an exclusive right of use to the registrant of the trademark for the goods or services for which the trademark is registered.
- Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Infringement of registered trademarks: Provides that cases where identical and deceptively similar trademarks have been used without consent be taken into consideration.
- Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 27(2) – Passing off: Protects the right to take proceedings against a person who represents the goods or services as those of any other business.
- Copyright Act, 1957 Section 14 – Meaning of copyright: Describes the rights held by the copyright owners, including rights with respect to original artistic works.
- Copyright Act, 1957 Section 51 – When copyright is infringed: Infringement of copyright may occur when a person without the consent of the owner performs an act reserved to the copyright owner.
- Copyright Act, 1957, Section 55 – Civil remedies for infringement: Provisions for civil remedies for copyright infringement.
ARGUMENTS
PLAINTIFF- The plaintiffs stated that they had created a significant amount of goodwill in the NATURAL mark through years of doing business, franchising, registering the trademark and spending money on advertising. Using their business documents, information about their registration and their sales, they were able to prove the reputation and economic strength of the brand.
It was claimed that the unknown defendants intentionally used the same marks, logos, websites and e-mail addresses to create confusion among potential franchisees and consumers. Using forged franchise letters and charging money for licensing, the defendants benefited from the reputation of the plaintiffs.
Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that the above actions were a violation of their trademarks and copyrights, and an act of passing off. The plaintiff was seeking an injunction to prevent the unauthorised use of their marks and artworks, as well as any acts of promoting the fake websites and email addresses.
DEFENDANT – This order indicates that counsel for Defendant No. 2, GoDaddy.com LLC, appeared before the court. However, the order does not mention anything regarding the arguments put forward by the defendants. Thus, it is not possible to identify any defence made by the defendants through this order
ANALYSIS
The court considered the plaint, together with the evidence furnished by the plaintiffs in the form of trademark registrations and their trading history, as well as sales and advertising costs. The court considered that the NATURAL Ice Cream business has been operating since 1984 and that the plaintiffs have built up considerable commercial goodwill.
The court observed that the alleged use of the word “NATURAL” by unknown persons seemed to be taking advantage of the established market reputation built by the plaintiffs. Based on the evidence before the court, there was a clear prima facie case made out for the grant of ad-interim relief under prayer clauses (a), (b) and (g).
JUDGMENT
On 8th October 2026, it was held by the Bombay High Court that there existed a prima facie case made out in favour of ad interim relief to the plaintiffs. This relief pertained to the infringement of the NATURAL Family Marks and copyrights, together with passing off via deceptive websites and communication. The matter was listed again for 7th January 2027.
CONCLUSION
This decision emphasises the need for safeguarding the trademark of an already established business along with its goodwill, from online impersonation and franchise scams. It further shows how the courts can provide interim relief based on the fact that there is a prima facie case. This was only an interim order and not the final order of the suit.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY- DEBARATI CHATTERJEE
