Madras High Court Upholds KMF's Opposition To Registration of 'NANDINI' Mark For Agarbattis

In a judgment dated January 19, 2026, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh allowed KMF's appeal and overturned an order passed by the Trade Marks Registry in April 2010, observing that the objection had been rejected without proper consideration of the deceptive similarity between the rival marks and the long-standing reputation acquired by KMF in the “NANDINI” mark.

Holding that a case of deceptive similarity was made out, the Court observed that, “first respondent had chosen the name of 'nandini' without any prefix or suffix and has also adopted the same style of writing the word 'nandini' – all in small letters.”

KMF, a federation of milk producers in Karnataka, told the Court that it has been using the trademark “NANDINI” since 1983 for milk and milk-based products. It asserted that, over the years, the brand has become a household name in Karnataka and neighboring states. The federation also stated that it holds copyright registrations for its labels and has been the registered proprietor of the “NANDINI” trademark.

The dispute arose when KMF noticed an application in the Trade Marks Journal filed by Vinod Kanji Shah and Nitin Kanji Shah, trading as Shalimar Agarbatti Company, seeking registration of the mark “nandini” for agarbattis and dhoops. KMF opposed the application, arguing that the use of an identical mark would cause consumer confusion and dilute its well-known mark.

In 2010, the Trade Marks Registry rejected KMF's objection, holding that “NANDINI” was a common name, that the rival goods were different and that there was no likelihood of confusion. KMF challenged this decision and the matter eventually came before the High Court after the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.

Upon examining the rival marks, the Court noted that the incense manufacturer had adopted the word “nandini” without any distinguishing prefix or suffix and had written it in the same style and lettering as KMF's mark.

The Court observed that this was a crucial distinction from an earlier Supreme Court ruling involving KMF, where the competing mark “NANDHINI DELUXE” was permitted to be used as it contained a distinguishing suffix and a different visual presentation.

The Court held that while “NANDINI” may be a generic term, the manner in which it was adopted by the incense manufacturer, coupled with KMF's long-standing reputation, rendered the rival mark deceptively similar.

“Considering the fact that appellant developed a huge reputation with the mark 'nandini' for a long period of time, the phonetic similarity and the manner, in which, the first respondent has written the word 'nandini' as its mark would certainly make the offending mark deceptively similar and a customer, who is well versed with the mark of the appellant, will be certainly misled by the style adopted by the first respondent in writing the word 'nandini' and also its phonetic resemblance,” the court observed.

Finding that the Trade Marks Registry had overlooked these key aspects, the Court allowed KMF's appeal and set aside the order rejecting its objection.

For Appellant: Senior Advocate S Ravi for Advocates A Venkatesh Kumar, R Sanjeev & A Shravan

For Respondents: SPC J Madanagopal Rao for Trademark Registry