{"id":242127,"date":"2011-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011"},"modified":"2017-03-23T21:35:34","modified_gmt":"2017-03-23T16:05:34","slug":"bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries &#8230; vs Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 17 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries &#8230; vs Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 17 October, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n<pre>*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                   Judgment Reserved On: 12th October, 2011\n                   Judgment Delivered On: 17th October, 2011\n\n+                       FAO(OS) 109\/2011\n\n        BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD....Appellant\n                 Through: Mr.Mohan Vidhani, Mr.Rahul\n                          Vidhani &amp; Mr.Mihir Malhotra,\n                          Advocates.\n\n                              versus\n\n        PARUL FOOD SPECIALITIES PVT. LTD. .....Respondent\n                 Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Senior\n                           Advocate with Mr.H.P.Singh,\n                           Mr.Navroop Singh &amp;\n                           Mr.S.P.Kaushal, Advocates.\n\n        CORAM:\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n        to see the judgment?\n     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\nPRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>1.      Vide   impugned     order   dated    19.1.2011,      while<br \/>\nrestraining the defendant\/respondent from selling \u201eGhee\u201f<br \/>\nusing the trademark \u201eKRISHNA\u201f but permitting sale with the<br \/>\nlabel having words &#8220;PARUL\u201fS&#8221; and \u201eLORD\u201f i.e. to read<br \/>\n&#8220;PARUL\u201fS LORD KRISHNA&#8221;; all 3 words having same font and<br \/>\nprominence and not that the words &#8220;PARUL\u201fS&#8221; and \u201eLORD\u201f<br \/>\nhaving a font so small that only the word \u201eKRISHNA\u201f catches<br \/>\n(the eye due to its prominence), application filed by the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">FAO(OS) 109\/2011                               Page 1 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n appellant\/plaintiff for interim injunction pending disposal of<br \/>\nthe suit has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    The appellant asserts that it has been in the business<br \/>\nof manufacture and sale of ghee, milk and milk products<br \/>\nsince the year 1992 and sales have risen from `47.29 crores<br \/>\nin the year 1997-1998 to `374.44 crores in the year 2008-<br \/>\n2009.    Appellant asserts that it has obtained registration of<br \/>\nthe label mark \u201eKRISHNA\u201f having pictorial reflection of Lord<br \/>\nKrishna standing on a lotus flower for dairy products falling<br \/>\nin Class-29 of the Trade Mark Act. It is the further claim of<br \/>\nthe appellant that it is the registered proprietor of the word<br \/>\n\u201eKRISHNA\u201f written in a unique distinctive style where the<br \/>\nserif of the letter \u201eK\u201f extends beneath the letters \u201eRISHNA\u201f in<br \/>\na curved manner and just after the letter \u201eA\u201f takes a loop in<br \/>\nthe reverse above the word \u201eKRISHNA\u201f and as the loop<br \/>\ncrosses the letter \u201eK\u201f it curves down and ends at the letter<br \/>\n\u201eK\u201f i.e. the pictorial representation is the word \u201eKRISHNA\u201f<br \/>\nbeing encapsuled within a bean.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    With reference to its sale figures, it is the case of the<br \/>\nappellant that the word \u201eKRISHNA\u201f has acquired a distinct<br \/>\nsecondary meaning in relation to the milk product sold by it<br \/>\nand     thus   appellant   alleges   an   infrangible   proprietary<br \/>\ninterest in the word \u201eKRISHNA\u201f.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    The defendant\/respondent asserted that the word<br \/>\n\u201eKRISHNA\u201f is a common word and is the name of a Hindu<br \/>\nGod who is associated with butter, milk and ghee and thus<br \/>\nassert that the appellant cannot claim any exclusivity in the<br \/>\nsaid word. That the word \u201eKRISHNA\u201f has acquired secondary<br \/>\ndistinctiveness vis-\u00e0-vis the goods manufactured and sold<br \/>\nby the plaintiff\/appellant has been negated. Alternatively it<br \/>\nis the case of the defendant that it is using the word<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">FAO(OS) 109\/2011                                  Page 2 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n \u201eKRISHNA\u201f with 2 words prefixing the word \u201eKRISHNA\u201f being<br \/>\nthe words \u201ePARUL\u201fS\u201f and \u201eLORD\u201f.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.    For the purposes of an interim injunction pending trial,<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge has posed 3 questions, for<br \/>\npurposes of taking a prima facie view, being: (a) Whether<br \/>\nthe trademark of the plaintiff has achieved secondary<br \/>\ndistinctiveness of a kind which immediately brings to mind<br \/>\nthe appellant&#8217;s product? (b) Whether the plaintiff could<br \/>\nmonopolise a name ascribed to deity &#8216;KRISHNA&#8217;? And (c)<br \/>\nWhether a registration of a trademark obtained by a person<br \/>\ncould be a subject matter of consideration in an action for<br \/>\ninfringement of the trademark pending application filed<br \/>\nbefore the Registrar of Trademarks for cancellation thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    With regard of issue (c), the learned Single Judge has<br \/>\nheld in favour of the defendant\/respondent and we do not<br \/>\ndiscuss said issue as during arguments in the appeal said<br \/>\naspect was not touched upon by learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.    With regard to issue (a), the learned Single Judge<br \/>\nnoted that in order to arrive at a conclusion whether or not a<br \/>\nmark has achieved secondary distinctiveness of a kind<br \/>\nwhich immediately brings to mind the product of the<br \/>\nproprietor of the mark, prima facie evidence has to be<br \/>\nbrought wherefrom a view could be taken that the mark in<br \/>\nquestion reminds the consumer of the origin of the goods,<br \/>\nwhich would encompass material to prima facie opine of the<br \/>\nsufficiency of the distinctive secondary character acquired<br \/>\nby the mark.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.    The learned Single Judge, in para 14.4 of the impugned<br \/>\norder, has noted that several manufacturers of identical<br \/>\ngoods have been using the word \u201eKRISHNA\u201f as a part of their<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">FAO(OS) 109\/2011                              Page 3 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n trademark and thus has opined that plaintiff\u201fs claim for<br \/>\ndistinctiveness and hence monopoly was prima facie not<br \/>\nquite accurate.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.    The learned Single Judge has considered the decisions<br \/>\ncited where a common word was held as acquiring<br \/>\nsecondary distinctiveness, and has rightly held that whether<br \/>\na common word had acquired secondary distinctiveness is<br \/>\nprimarily a question of fact.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   With reference to the name of a deity, the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge has held that law would lean against a deity\u201fs<br \/>\nname being monopolized to the exclusion of the others.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   Challenging the said opinion, prima facie found,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the appellant urged that the rising sale<br \/>\nfigures of the plaintiff was determinative of the secondary<br \/>\ndistinctive meaning acquired by the trademark in question<br \/>\nin relation to the goods in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.   We are in agreement with the view taken by the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge not only for the reasons given by the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge but the additional reason, as in the<br \/>\ninstant case, a deity may be associated with a particular<br \/>\nkind of goods. It is common knowledge that Lord Krishna,<br \/>\nas a child, was known for his love of milk and butter and<br \/>\nthus Lord Krishna is closely linked with milk and butter and<br \/>\nthis would certainly dilute a proprietary claim projected by<br \/>\nany person, in relation to Krishna with dairy products.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.   In a vast country like India where the population<br \/>\nexceeds 120 crore citizens, a sales figure of `300 crores per<br \/>\nannum would translate to less than `3\/- per head per<br \/>\nannum. Not to be misunderstood that we are laying down<br \/>\nan empirical formula to be applied mathematically, with<br \/>\nreference to said illustration, we only wish to highlight that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">FAO(OS) 109\/2011                              Page 4 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n the volume of sale has to be considered with reference to<br \/>\nthe spectrum of consumers. For example, a product used<br \/>\nby only a few would require issue of distinctiveness to be<br \/>\nconsidered with reference to the sales keeping in view the<br \/>\nmarket span. It is the span of the market which determines<br \/>\nthe secondary distinctive character acquired by a mark in<br \/>\nthe field in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.    Just as the word \u201eLOW ABSORB\u201f, an expression relating<br \/>\nto the character of the product, i.e. edible oil was held not<br \/>\nentitling the person to an exclusive use who first used the<br \/>\nsaid words, in the decision reported as 174 (2010) DLT 279<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1058317\/\">Marico Ltd. vs. Agro Tech Ltd., the<\/a> adoption of the name of a<br \/>\ndeity who is associated with a particular trait relating to<br \/>\ngoods, in the instant case Lord Krishna having a trait which<br \/>\nhas an association with milk and butter, would stand on the<br \/>\nsame low footing for protection as would be purely<br \/>\ndescriptive expressions pertaining to the subject product.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.    On the second question, the learned Single Judge has<br \/>\nreferred to various decisions guiding as to when words or<br \/>\npart-words prefixing or suffixing a word in dispute would be<br \/>\nrelevant on the subject of a monopoly to a word of common<br \/>\norigin.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.    The word \u201eKRISHNA\u201f was being used by the defendant<br \/>\nwith   the    words   \u201ePARUL\u201fS   LORD\u201f   preceding    the   word<br \/>\n\u201eKRISHNA\u201f.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.    The learned Single Judge has rightly noted that the<br \/>\nsmall font of the words \u201ePARUL\u201fS LORD\u201f with prominence to<br \/>\nthe word \u201eKRISHNA\u201f would disentitle the defendant to so sell<br \/>\nits product and thus has rightly directed the defendant to<br \/>\nprint the words \u201ePARUL\u201fS LORD\u201f with the same prominence<br \/>\nas the word \u201eKRISHNA\u201f.      It has been correctly opined that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">FAO(OS) 109\/2011                              Page 5 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n dairy product sold under the mark \u201eKRISHNA\u201f would not be<br \/>\nconfused qua the source if the same product is sold under<br \/>\nthe mark &#8220;PARUL\u201fS LORD KRISHNA&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.   Since the stage is of forming a prima facie view, we<br \/>\nrefrain from delving deep into the matter as evidence has<br \/>\nyet to be led, but would simply highlight that the<br \/>\nregistration obtained by the appellant is not per-se to the<br \/>\nword \u201eKRISHNA\u201f but is to the word \u201eKRISHNA\u201f written in a<br \/>\ndistinctive form : akin to a label.       The distinctiveness in<br \/>\nwhich the word \u201eKRISHNA\u201f is written by the appellant is as<br \/>\nnoted by us in para 2 above.\n<\/p>\n<p>19.   The distinctiveness to which the appellant can lay a<br \/>\nclaim is to what it has got registered as a whole and such<br \/>\nregistration cannot possibly give an exclusive statutory right<br \/>\nto the appellant qua a particular word of common origin.<br \/>\nThe ratio of law in the decision reported as AIR 1955 SC 558<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1247926\/\">The Registrar of Trade Marks vs. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd.<\/a><br \/>\nis squarely attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.   Before terminating our decision, we would note the law<br \/>\ngoverning Appellate Jurisdiction pertaining to interlocutory<br \/>\norders where a learned Single Judge has exercised a<br \/>\ndiscretionary power. In the decision reported as 1990 (2)<br \/>\nALR 399 <a href=\"\/doc\/330608\/\">Wander Ltd. &amp; Anr. vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., the<br \/>\nSupreme      Court<\/a>   laid   down   the   contours   of   Appellate<br \/>\nJurisdiction in the following words:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;&#8230;..the appeals before the Division Bench were<br \/>\n      against the exercise of discretion by the Single<br \/>\n      Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will<br \/>\n      not interfere with the exercise of discretion by<br \/>\n      the Court of first instance and substitute its own<br \/>\n      discretion except where the discretion has been<br \/>\n      shown to have been exercised either arbitrarily,<br \/>\n      or capriciously or perversely or where the Court<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">FAO(OS) 109\/2011                                Page 6 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n       has ignored the settled principles of law<br \/>\n      regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory<br \/>\n      injunction.    An appeal against exercise of<br \/>\n      discretion is said to be an appeal on principle.&#8221;<br \/>\n      (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>21.   Since we are agreeing with the view taken by the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge, we have reflected as above in a brief<br \/>\nmanner, lest parties are prejudiced at the trial and needless<br \/>\nto state observations made by us herein above are tentative<br \/>\nand limited to what we need to observe and note at the<br \/>\nstage of interim relief. The final decision, post trial, would<br \/>\nobviously be with reference to the evidence led.\n<\/p>\n<p>22.   However, one direction needs to be issued. Which we<br \/>\ndo.\n<\/p>\n<p>23.   The respondent would maintain an account of the<br \/>\nsales affected by it and would file the same if required to be<br \/>\nfiled before the Court by the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>24.   Subject to the direction issued in para 22 above, the<br \/>\nappeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>25.   No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                 (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)<br \/>\n                                        JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>                                    (SUNIL GAUR)<br \/>\n                                         JUDGE<br \/>\nOCTOBER 17, 2011<br \/>\ndk<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">FAO(OS) 109\/2011                             Page 7 of 7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries &#8230; vs Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 17 October, 2011 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved On: 12th October, 2011 Judgment Delivered On: 17th October, 2011 + FAO(OS) 109\/2011 BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD&#8230;.Appellant Through: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-242127","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries ... vs Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries ... vs Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-23T16:05:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries &#8230; vs Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 17 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-23T16:05:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1724,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries ... vs Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-23T16:05:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries &#8230; vs Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 17 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries ... vs Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries ... vs Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-23T16:05:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries &#8230; vs Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 17 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-23T16:05:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011"},"wordCount":1724,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011","name":"Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries ... vs Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-23T16:05:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhole-baba-milk-food-industries-vs-parul-food-specialities-pvt-ltd-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries &#8230; vs Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 17 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242127","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=242127"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242127\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}