Delhi High Court Orders Destruction Of Counterfeit Nutella-Shaped Glass Jars Seized In Trademark Case

The Delhi High Court has partly modified an order directing the handover of over three lakh seized infringing Nutella-shaped glass jars to registered proprietor Ferrero S.p.A. The court held that while seizure and delivery-up of the jars was justified, they must be destroyed and not put to any commercial or other use.

A division bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment dated January 6, 2026, disposed of an appeal filed by Firozabad-based glass jar manufacturers.

The appeal had challenged a judgment and a subsequent order passed by a single judge on November 19, 2025, and December 8, 2025.

The appeal arose from a trademark infringement suit filed by Ferrero, the maker of Nutella spreads. Ferrero alleged that the manufacturers were producing and selling empty glass jars deceptively similar to its registered Nutella jar shape. The jars were allegedly marketed online as “Nutella glass jars” on websites and e-commerce platforms.

By its judgment dated November 19, 2025, the Single Judge had permanently restrained the manufacturers from making and selling the infringing jars.

The court also directed them to hand over 3.05 lakh seized jars to Ferrero and awarded Rs 10 lakh as legal costs.

The Single Judge held that the manufacturers were not innocent infringers but “first-time knowing infringers.” The court noted that references to “Nutella jars” in emails, drawings, and website listings showed actual and constructive knowledge of Ferrero's proprietary rights.

The manufacturers challenged only the direction to hand over the seized jars. They argued that the jars were generic and could be used for other products such as honey, jams, or pickles. They also claimed there was no finding linking them to the sale of counterfeit Nutella products.

Rejecting these submissions, the Division Bench held that the findings in the earlier judgment clearly established that the seized jars were infringing. It said the manufacturers were knowing infringers.

Explaining the rights of a registered trademark owner, the court said such an owner has two rights. The first is the exclusive right to use the mark. The second right is to obtain relief against infringement as provided in the Trade Marks Act.

It noted that Section 135(1) of the Trade Marks Act includes delivery up of infringing goods for erasure or destruction.

The court added that once the jars were held to be infringing, the consequences under Sections 28(1) and 135(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, would follow, including delivery-up of the infringing goods for destruction.

However, the bench took exception to the liberty granted by the single judge allowing Ferrero to potentially use the jars. It modified the earlier orders to this limited extent and directed that the jars, once handed over, must be destroyed and not put to any commercial or other use.