The Madras High Court has delivered a definitive ruling in a long-standing intellectual property dispute between two Indian consumer goods giants. A Division Bench, comprising Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel, dismissed an appeal filed by Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., ending a legal battle that began four years ago over the branding of biscuit products.
The Core of the Dispute: ‘Aarogya’ vs. ‘Arogya’
The legal conflict originated in 2020 when Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., a leading private sector dairy company in India, sought an injunction against Patanjali. Hatsun contended that Patanjali’s use of the brand name “Arogya” for its biscuit line infringed upon Hatsun’s registered trademark, “Aarogya.”
Hatsun argued that the names were phonetically and visually similar, potentially leading to consumer confusion in the marketplace. The dairy major had been utilizing the “Aarogya” brand for various products and sought to protect its market identity from what it perceived as a direct imitation by Patanjali.
High Court Upholds Previous Ruling
The recent decision by the Division Bench marks the dismissal of an original side appeal filed by Hatsun. This appeal was directed against a prior single-judge order that had already ruled in favor of Patanjali. In the initial proceedings, the court found that Hatsun failed to establish a strong enough case to prevent Patanjali from using the “Arogya” name for its biscuits.
The judges noted that “Aarogya” or “Arogya” are common Sanskrit-derived terms meaning “health” or “disease-free.” Under Indian trademark law, generic or descriptive terms often face a higher threshold for absolute exclusivity, especially when used across different product categories or by multiple established entities.
Impact on the FMCG Sector
This ruling is seen as a significant win for Patanjali Ayurved, allowing the company to continue its marketing efforts for the “Arogya” biscuit range without the threat of further injunctions from Hatsun regarding this specific trademark. For Hatsun, the dismissal represents the exhaustion of a primary legal avenue to claim exclusive rights to the name in the context of Patanjali’s competing goods.
Legal experts suggest that this case highlights the complexities of trademarking words that are deeply embedded in the local vernacular and cultural health concepts. Both companies remain major players in the Indian Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) sector, and this resolution provides needed clarity on their respective branding boundaries.
