A Kerala court fined private dairy ‘Milnna’ Rs 1 crore for copying the name and design of the popular brand ‘Milma’. The court said Milnna damaged Milma’s reputation and ordered a complete ban on the use of similar names or packaging.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Thiruvananthapuram: A Kerala court has ordered a private dairy company named Milnna to pay a fine of Rs 1 crore to the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation (Milma).
The reason for this heavy penalty is that Milnna used a name and packaging design that looked very similar to Milma, which is a well-known cooperative brand selling milk and milk products across Kerala.
The Principal Commercial Court in Thiruvananthapuram, under Judge Mariam Salomi, clearly found that Milnna had copied Milma’s brand identity in a way that misled people and benefited unfairly from Milma’s name and good reputation.
“The defendant’s (Jose George) impugned mark ‘Milnna’ is a blatant copy of the prior registered trademark of the plaintiff (Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation) and the defendant is unjustly enriching at the cost of the plaintiff and is profiting off the goodwill and reputation earned by the plaintiff.”
According to the court judgment, the private dairy owner Jose George, who was marketing products under the name Milnna, used a trademark and packaging design that looked too similar to Milma’s. The court said this not only confused consumers but also harmed Milma’s reputation.
It ordered the defendant to pay Rs 1 crore with 14.5% future interest, and this amount can be taken from any of the defendant’s assets.
“The evidence of the plaintiff shows that the defendant is infringing the registered A schedule trade mark and B schedule trade dress/packing the goodwill and reputation 46 acquired by the plaintiff to the A schedule trade mark and B schedule trade dress/packing. Thus the plaintiff claims that it is entitled to realise Rs.1,00,00,000/- with future interest @ 14.5% from the defendant and charged on all assets of the defendant for infringing the registered A schedule trade mark and B schedule trade dress/packing and for damaging the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff,”
-the court said in its December 2024 judgment, which was made public recently.
Additionally, the judge banned Milnna from continuing to use any similar name or packaging for selling milk, milk products, or any related items.
“The defendant and his agents are restrained from marketing, offering for sale, advertising for sale and selling any milk or milk products or allied products using plaint C schedule marks or trademarks, trade dress/cover which is deceptively similar to plaint A schedule registered trademarks and B schedule trade dress packing belongs to the plaintiff in India by a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction”,
-the judge ordered.
Milma had also asked the court to stop Milnna from using any kind of name or product packaging that could look like Milma’s. The court fully agreed and also asked Milnna to pay all legal costs spent by Milma in fighting the case.
The case was based on a civil suit filed by Milma, which argued that Milnna was selling milk using the name and packet design that looked almost the same as theirs. This, they said, was cheating the public and stealing the popularity of Milma’s trusted brand.
Milma also explained that their name ‘Milma’ was invented by combining the first three letters from “milk” and the last two from “marketing.” This unique name was registered as a trademark in 1985 under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and is valid till May 6, 2026.
Milma pointed out that it had used this name and many similar versions of it for years, building strong recognition and legal rights over the brand. The company also told the court that Milnna had copied not only the name but also the design, color pattern, and packet style, making it look nearly identical to Milma products.
Interestingly, the defendant Jose George did not show up in court or respond to the summons.
Because of this, the court had no reason to doubt Milma’s claims and accepted all their evidence.
“The defendant did not attempt to disprove the case of the plaintiff and it was not even challenged by the defendant. The non appearance of the defendant shows that he is not opposing the claim of the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff before the court seems to be convincing and cogent. I could not find any reason to discard the evidence led by the plaintiff,”
-the court noted while allowing Milma’s request for legal relief.
CASE TITLE:
The Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v. Jose George
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Trademark
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
