Nandini Trademark Saga: When Similar is Too Similar

Indian commerce and culture hold a special place for the name ‘NANDINI’ as it is rooted in mythology and everyday language. This name, NANDINI, is the flagship brand of the Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (KMF), which, over the decades, has become a household name and a trusted symbol of quality dairy products. As the brand grew and the name became embedded in the mind of the public, it was natural that the common generic name NANDINI would eventually be tested in court. Accordingly, we saw two judgments with different outcomes: one by the Supreme Court of India in 2018[1] and the other by the Madras High Court in 2026[2].

Nandini v Nandhini Deluxe

The KMF has challenged the restaurant chain, which sought to register the mark “NANDHINI DELUXE” for food items falling under Classes 29 and 30, the same classes in which KMF held registrations for milk and dairy products, on the ground that the marks in question are phonetically similar and would cause confusion among the consumers.

The Supreme Court of India, however, approached the case by considering the marks as a whole and held that the class overlap alone does not determine the similarity of goods. The Court noted that NANDINI is a generic name associated with the mythological cow and therefore cannot be monopolised by a single entity. In addition to that, the marks in question are not simply NANDINI but “NANDHINI DELUXE”, accompanied by distinct logos, trade dress, and a restaurant-based business model. The restaurant had also excluded milk and milk products from its application. On these facts, the Court found that consumer confusion was unlikely and allowed the registration.

Nandini v Nandini

Unlike Nandini Deluxe, the respondent here adopted “nandini” alone, without any prefix or suffix, and in a style closely resembling KMF’s mark. The resemblance between the rival marks is both phonetic and visual; the two marks were nearly identical. The Trade Marks Registry dismissed KMF’s opposition on the ground that “Nandini” is a common name and that the goods were unrelated. The Madras High Court found this reasoning inadequate and legally flawed.

The High Court differentiated the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling by emphasising the overall impression and style of use. It was established that even a generic or commonplace term can acquire distinctiveness through prolonged and widespread use. Given KMF’s well-established reputation, the identical use of “nandini” was likely to mislead consumers into believing there was a commercial association or brand extension. The Court accordingly vacated the Registrar’s decision and upheld KMF’s opposition, reaffirming that trademark law safeguards against source confusion rather than solely addressing product similarity.

Although the 2018 judgment held that KMF does not have monopoly rights over NANDINI, the Madras High Court centered its analysis on the manner of adoption and use of the NANDINI mark for agarbattis and dhoops in Class 3, prioritising this over mere differences in the goods

These two judgments, when taken together, present a coherent and balanced narrative. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Nandhini Deluxe allows for coexistence where distinct differentiation is present, even within the same class of goods. The judgment of the Madras High Court affirms the safeguarding of interests where an almost identical adoption undermines consumer perception. The Madras High Court did not contradict the Supreme Court. It applied the same legal principles to a different factual matrix. Where meaningful distinction exists, similar marks can coexist. Where distinction is superficial, similarity becomes infringement.

The Nandini trademark saga is a reminder that in intellectual property law, context is decisive. The same word may be permissible in one case and prohibited in another.  Trademark rights can be enforced when an identical mark adoption exploits the goodwill of a well-known mark, even across unrelated product categories. After 16 years of legal battle KMF case ends with the simple conclusion that:

If it looks like Nandini, sounds like Nandini, and is styled like Nandini – it is too similar to Nandini.

[1] Nandhini Deluxe Vs. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. [reported in 2018 (9) SCC 183]

[2] Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited v. Vinod Kanji, Shah and Nitin (T)CMA(TM).No.112 of 2023

Written by
Nishmma James