New Delhi. In a significant development in a trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court has imposed a fine of ₹10 lakh on Parle Agro for failing to comply with its earlier directions, particularly regarding the periodic disclosure of sales figures.
The case arises from an ongoing dispute between PepsiCo and Parle Agro over the use of the tagline “For The Bold.” Hearing the matter, the Bench led by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela emphasized that maintaining the sanctity of court orders is a fundamental obligation for all parties. The Court observed that although the failure to submit sales data may not have been deliberate, it still amounted to a “clear, serious and unambiguous violation” of its directions.
FCRF Returns With CDPO, Its Premier Data Protection Certification for Privacy Professionals
Background of the Dispute
The dispute dates back to 2021, when PepsiCo approached the Court seeking to restrain Parle Agro from using the tagline “For The Bold” for its ‘B Fizz’ beverage, alleging infringement of its trademark rights. While the Court did not impose a complete ban on the use of the tagline during the pendency of the case, it laid down specific conditions governing its usage.
These conditions included restricting the tagline from being used as a dominant element in advertising campaigns, removing certain social media posts, and most importantly, submitting certified sales figures of ‘B Fizz’ every two months before the Court. This last requirement later became the focal point of the dispute.
Sales Data Non-Disclosure
Subsequently, PepsiCo filed an application alleging that Parle Agro had continued to use the tagline on social media and had also failed to regularly submit its sales data as directed. The Court examined both aspects separately.
On the issue of social media posts, the Court noted that the two posts in question were older and had remained online inadvertently. Accepting the company’s explanation, the Court held that this did not amount to wilful disobedience and refrained from taking punitive action on that count.
However, the Court adopted a much stricter stance regarding the non-disclosure of sales figures. It found that Parle Agro had failed to comply with the requirement of submitting certified sales data every two months for over two and a half years. The company argued that such disclosures would only be relevant at the stage of trial, but the Court firmly rejected this contention.
Fine and Court Order
The Bench categorically stated that no party can decide which court directions are important and which are not. Compliance with judicial orders must be timely and complete. It further observed that the company could not claim ignorance of the directions issued earlier.
Based on these findings, the Court imposed a cost of ₹10 lakh on Parle Agro and directed that the amount be deposited with the ‘Bharat Ke Veer’ fund within three weeks. Additionally, the deponent who filed the company’s affidavits has been directed to tender an unconditional apology within four weeks.
The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on September 10, where the Court will continue to examine the case.
Wider Legal Impact
Legal experts believe that this order sends a strong message to the corporate sector that non-compliance with judicial directions will not be tolerated under any circumstances. The ruling underscores that adherence to court orders is not optional and cannot be subject to a party’s interpretation of relevance.
Beyond the immediate dispute, the case highlights a broader trend of courts adopting a stricter approach not only in protecting intellectual property rights but also in ensuring compliance with procedural and interim directions. The outcome of the case is likely to have wider implications for corporate conduct and litigation practices in India.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
