INTRODUCTION
Trademark protection plays a crucial role in preserving a brand’s distinct identity and empowers businesses to prevent others from using names or marks that are deceptively similar. A recent case highlighting this principle, Lay’s vs Jay’s trademark dispute involving PepsiCo’s well known brand Lay’s. The Calcutta High Court intervened after holding that the mark Jay’s was phonetically and deceptively similar to Lay’s and was likely to mislead consumers by causing confusion. The decision highlights how established brands vigilantly enforce their trademark rights to safeguard their goodwill and to stop competitors from deriving an unfair commercial advantage in the market.
BACKGROUND
The present day PepsiCo, Inc. was established in 1965 through the merger of Frito Lay and the Pepsi-Cola Company. Frito-Lay Inc. itself was the product of an earlier merger in 1961 between H.W. Lay Company and The Frito Company. The brand’s foundational roots belong to Herman W. Lay, who started selling potato chips and formally established H.W. Lay Lingo & Company in 1938. The company’s continuous use for more than 75 years establishes Lay’s as the original and prior user.
ISSUES
a) The petitioner has obtained the registration of the Lay’s mark in India and in several other jurisdictions across the world. In India, the petitioner has been enjoyingregistration of the mark Lay’s, which was applied for on 31 July 1992. With the passage of time, the brand has also earned immense goodwill and brand equity. As Lays has been used for so long that its extensive use of the mark Lay’s is recognized both internationally and in India, the mark Lay’s has become distinctive and is exclusively associated with the product.
b) But, the respondent’s mark Jay’s is an infringement of the already registered mark of Lay’s and is established to take an unfair advantage in the market by harming the goodwill of the prior recognized and long standing Lay’s mark.
c) The unauthorized adoption of the mark Jay’s was conducted in bad faith and exhibited phonetic as well as deceptive similarity to the pre-existing mark Lay’s. This similarity is likely to cause confusion among consumers due to the same goods involved.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
The following provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 were applied in the dispute between Lay’s and Jay’s for the cancellation of registration of the latter mark:
a) Section 57: PepsiCo approached the court under this provision as it permits any aggrieved person to seek removal of a trademark from the register when the mark has been registered without a valid justification or is continuing on the register unlawfully.
b) Section 47: A registered trademark is liable to be removed from the register if there exists the ground of lack of bona fide intention.
c) Section 9(2)(a): A mark shall not be registered if it is of such a nature that it deceives the general public or causes confusion and it is an absolute ground for refusal.
d) Section 11: Central to the Court’s findings was the doctrine of relative grounds for refusal, which prohibits the registration of a mark that conflicts with a prior established trademark. The Jay’s mark was deceptively similar to Lay’s, consequently failing to meet the legal requirements for registration, as the mark had a significant risk of misleading the public and confusing consumers.
REFERRED CASE LAWS
a) Dabur India Ltd vs Usha Proprietor of R.S Industries & Anr. (2024)
The Delhi High Court protected the legacy of the ‘DABUR’ brand against an imitated mark. The court ruled that because Dabur has been a household name since 1884, it holds prior user rights and well-known status. The respondent was found to have acted in bad faith by picking a name that was deceptively similar to Dabur’s, clearly intending to confuse consumers. To prevent public confusion, the court ordered the imitated mark to be cancelled and removed from the trademark registry.
b) K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs. Shri Ambal & Co. (1969)
The Supreme Court of India held that phonetic similarity between trademarks is a crucial factor in determining an infringement. It was found that the names ‘Ambal’ and ‘Andal’ sounded similar. It was ruled that such phonetic resemblance was likely to cause confusion and unfair benefit. Consequently, registration of ‘Sri Andal’ was refused.
THE COURT’S DECISION
The Calcutta High Court allowed PepsiCo’s petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and ordered the cancellation of the registered trademark Jay’s owned by the respondent. The Court held that Jay’s is phonetically identical and deceptively similar to PepsiCo’s well-known registered trademark Lay’s making it liable for cancellation. PepsiCo, being a well-known global brand for snacks and beverages, including Lay’s has built a strong reputation.
The Bench comprising Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, emphasized that close similarity whether visual or phonetic is sufficient to establish infringement or grounds for cancellation. The Court observed that despite differences in packaging, Jay’s could mislead the public due to its phonetic similarity to Lay’s. It further noted that the registration of Jay’s was violated under Section 11 of the Act and that the respondent failed to provide any valid justification or credible evidence to sustain their trademark. The Court also highlighted that the mark appeared to have been adopted with mala fide intent to exploit the petitioner’s established reputation resulting in the cancellation of the Jay’s trademark.
CONCLUSION
The Calcutta High Court’s ruling in the ‘Pepsico vs Jagdamba Foods Pvt Ltd’ 2025 case reinforces the legal principle that phonetic similarity is a primary ground for trademark infringement. By ordering the cancellation of Jay’s mark, the Court affirmed that even if packaging differs, a name that sounds nearly identical to a well-known mark can mislead the average consumer. This decision upholds the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by protecting the rights of the prior user and preventing competitors from using mala fide tactics to profit from an established brand’s reputation. Ultimately, the verdict safeguards both business integrity and consumer clarity, ensuring that brand identity is legally protected from deceptive imitations.
REFERENCES
b) Dabur India Ltd vs Usha Proprietor of R.S Industries & Anr. (2024)
c) K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs. Shri Ambal & Co. (1969)
Author: Ms. Kamya Bhadouria, 4th Year Law Student, University Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh University
Read More Such Articles: The ‘Champak’ Controversy: A Trademark Dispute Between Print Legacy and Sporting Innovation – J.P. Associates