Delhi High Court Settles Trademark Dispute Between Nestle and Shree Shankeshwar Utensils
Shree Shankeshwar Utensils Agrees to Cease Use of "MAGGISUN," Recognizes Nestle's Trademark Rights Over "MAGGI"
In a significant resolution to a trademark infringement case, the Delhi High Court has decreed a settlement between Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A and M/s Shree Shankeshwar Utensils & Appliances Pvt Ltd. The settlement, sanctioned by Justice Tejas Karia, concludes a legal battle where Nestle accused Shree Shankeshwar Utensils of infringing on its "MAGGI" trademark by using the similar mark "MAGGISUN."
The case, filed as CS(COMM) 106 of 2018, was resolved on September 22, 2025, following a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 combined with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The defendant, Shree Shankeshwar Utensils, acknowledged Nestle's proprietary rights over the "MAGGI" trademark and agreed not to manufacture, sell, advertise, or engage with products under the "MAGGISUN" name or any similar mark.
Central to the settlement, Shree Shankeshwar Utensils has undertaken to destroy all existing products and materials bearing the "MAGGISUN" mark. This includes printed materials, labels, and equipment used for embossing the mark. Furthermore, the defendant has consented to cancel its trademark registration for "MAGGISUN" and has confirmed not filing any other trademark or copyright applications related to "MAGGISUN" or "MAGGI."
The court's decree mandates that Shree Shankeshwar Utensils comply with these terms, and the defendant's obligations extend to its affiliates, agents, and successors. The decree is seen as a robust affirmation of Nestle's trademark rights and a clear signal to entities engaged in similar trademark disputes.
Advocates Mr. Manish Kumar Mishra, Ms. Akansha Singh, and Mr. Saransh Saini represented Nestle, while Ms. Ishita Suri advocated for the defendant. The resolution reflects a mutual understanding and commitment to uphold trademark integrity.
Justice Karia’s order concludes the suit, with all pending applications disposed of, marking a pivotal decision in trademark jurisprudence. The decree emphasizes the importance of respecting intellectual property rights and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes.
Bottom Line:
Trade mark infringement - Settlement between the parties - Defendant acknowledges Plaintiff's ownership of the trade mark "MAGGI" and undertakes not to manufacture, sell, or advertise products under the infringing trade mark "MAGGISUN" or any similar mark - Defendant further agrees to destroy infringing materials and cancel its trade mark registration.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999, Order XXIII Rule 3, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
