The Delhi High Court has turned down the plea of drug firm Cadila healthcare seeking to restrain Diat Foods from using the 'sugar free' tag for low calorie food products.
A bench headed by Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Valmiki J Mehta said the expression, 'sugar free', cannot be restricted if used in descriptive sense and without the intent of causing confusion among customers.
"There is no restraint on the respondent (Diat Foods) using the expression 'sugar free'. The use of the word, 'sugar free' in descriptive sense or otherwise cannot be restricted, though it should be used in a manner so as to avoid confusion by not indicating a connection with the product of Cadila Healthcare," the court said.
However, the court said the 'sugar free' tag cannot be used with greater prominence or with a larger font size than the other distinctive character of the product and granted 30 days time to Diat Foods to exhaust existing packaging stocks.
"The expression 'sugar free' should not be used with greater prominence and a larger font size than 'Sugarless Bliss' and 'Sweetened with Splenda' (which are used on the packets of Cadila's products). Diat Foods is granted 30 days' time to exhaust existing stocks of packaging," the court said.
Cadila Healthcare contended that Diat Food has been using the trademark, 'sugar free', which is identical, or deceptively similar to its trademark.
Cadila Healthcare further contended that Diat Food has used its trademark, 'sugar free', with a bigger font size and bright colour for its product, 'Sugar Free Cookies', so as to make it almost indistinguishable from Cadila's products.
However, the court rejected the contention of the firm and said the trademark, 'sugar free', cannot be said to be a coined word and at best a combination of two popular English words. Such adoption entitles other in the field to use the expression unless attempts were made to cause confusion among customers.
"Cadila Healthcare's trademark, 'sugar free', cannot be said to be a coined word and was at best a combination of two popular English words. Such adoption naturally entails the reason that others in the field would also be entitled to use such phrases, provided no attempt is made to ride on the bandwagon of the appellant (Cadila Healthcare)," the court said.
