A street hawker was selling “PULSER” Kaccha Aam candies — copying not just the name but the trade dress and tagline of the wildly popular PULSE candy. The Delhi High Court shut it down, and in a rare, welfare-minded twist, sent the money to an animal centre.
The dispute
The plaintiff — part of the PASS PASS PULSE group (registered proprietor) — launched PULSE hard-boiled candies on 13 December 2014, in flavours like Kaccha Aam, Guava and Orange, in a distinctive layout, get-up and colour scheme. PULSE gained rapid popularity.
In February 2019, during market surveillance, the plaintiff found a street hawker selling raw-mango candies under the mark PULSER (DADA trading style) — with:
- a deceptively similar mark (PULSER/PULSAR);
- an identical trade dress;
- the same flavour (Kaccha Aam); and
- an identical tagline — “Kaccha Aam with Tangy Twist.”
The plaintiff sued for trademark, copyright and trade-dress infringement.
The ruling — with a welfare twist
The suit was decreed for the plaintiff. The court directed the defendants to:
- deposit ₹2 lakh with Friendicoes (an animal welfare centre), filing the receipt within two weeks;
- withdraw their PULSER trademark application; and
- comply with other reliefs sought.
What stands out is the social angle: rather than a straightforward punitive payment to the plaintiff, the court went a step ahead and directed a deposit to an animal welfare cause — pairing reprimand with welfare.
The takeaway
The case is a clean illustration that trade dress, flavour and tagline — not just the name — matter in a copycat analysis. And it shows courts can be creative with relief, channelling a deterrent payment to a charitable cause.
The takeaways
- Copying trade dress and tagline — not only the name — supports an infringement finding.
- Injunction plus application withdrawal — the copycat had to abandon its PULSER filing.
- Creative relief — a ₹2 lakh deposit to an animal welfare centre, blending deterrence with a cause.
- Distinctive get-up is protectable — PULSE’s layout and colour scheme were central.
Frequently asked questions
Can copying trade dress and a tagline amount to infringement? Yes — the PULSER copycat mirrored PULSE’s mark, trade dress, flavour and tagline, and the court found infringement and granted an injunction.
What relief did the court grant? An injunction, a direction to withdraw the PULSER trademark application, and — notably — a ₹2 lakh deposit to an animal welfare centre.
Why did the court direct payment to a charity? It took a social/welfare angle, channelling the deterrent payment to an animal cause rather than a straightforward award to the plaintiff.
Is distinctive packaging protectable? Yes — PULSE’s distinctive layout, get-up and colour scheme were central to the finding of deceptive similarity.
Legislation referred to
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999