The Delhi High Court is set to hear a battle between Parle Agro and PepsiCo over the use of the term “fizz” in their brand names. Parle Agro, the manufacturer of Frooti and Appy, has filed a lawsuit against PepsiCo, alleging that the latter’s use of the term “Fizz” in their brand name is infringing on Parle Agro’s trademark rights.
PepsiCo has recently launched a new beverage brand called “Fizz”, which Parle Agro claims is deceptively similar to their own brand name. Parle Agro argues that the use of the term “fizz” by PepsiCo is likely to cause confusion among consumers and dilute the distinctiveness of their own brand.
The lawsuit filed by Parle Agro seeks an injunction against PepsiCo, restraining them from using the term “fizz” in their brand name. Parle Agro also claims that PepsiCo’s actions are an attempt to take advantage of the reputation and goodwill that Parle Agro has built over the years.
PepsiCo, on the other hand, argues that the term “fizz” is a generic term that refers to the carbonation process used in beverages. They claim that their use of the term “fizz” is legitimate and does not infringe on Parle Agro’s trademark rights.
The Delhi High Court will hear the case and decide whether PepsiCo’s use of the term “fizz” is indeed an infringement on Parle Agro’s trademark rights. The court’s decision will have significant implications for the beverage industry, as it will set a precedent for the use of generic terms in brand names.
The battle between Parle Agro and PepsiCo is a classic case of trademark infringement, where two companies are fighting over the use of a similar term in their brand names. The outcome of the case will depend on the court’s interpretation of the trademark laws and the evidence presented by both parties.
In recent years, there have been several high-profile cases of trademark infringement in the beverage industry. The outcome of this case will be closely watched by industry observers, as it will have significant implications for the use of generic terms in brand names. The Delhi High Court’s decision will provide clarity on the issue and help to establish a clear precedent for the use of similar terms in the industry.