Bombay High Court Grants Interim Protection to NATURAL Ice Cream Marks Against Fake Franchise Websites

What the dispute concerns

The order arose in a commercial intellectual property suit filed by Siddhant Ice Creams LLP and another plaintiff against unidentified persons and other defendants. The first plaintiff claims proprietorship of a family of registered NATURAL marks, while the second is described as a master franchisee involved in manufacturing and distributing ice cream products.

The plaintiffs alleged that unknown operators had created websites and electronic communications that imitated the established brand. According to the pleading, these operators used forged franchise documents and emails to persuade prospective business partners to pay money for supposed franchise opportunities. Those allegations explain the request for urgent protection; they are not findings of criminal liability.

The plaintiffs traced the business to a single ice cream parlour established in Juhu in 1984 by Raghunandan Kamath. They relied on a substantial history of sales, promotional spending, trade mark registrations and franchise operations to show goodwill associated with the brand. The court recorded those details from the pleadings and exhibits.

The High Court’s assessment

Justice Madhav J. Jamdar examined the plaint and annexures in Interim Application (L) No. 22104 of 2026, arising from Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 328 of 2026. The court noted the plaintiffs’ long-standing business, the registered marks and material concerning sales and promotional expenditure.

The court considered the allegations that the unknown defendants had adopted the trade name to benefit from the plaintiffs’ market reputation. On that record it concluded that a very strong prima facie case existed for ad interim relief. A prima facie assessment supports temporary protection; it does not finally determine all issues that may arise at trial.

The order is dated 8 October 2026, although the available court document records an upload on 27 October. That distinction matters: the development was newly reported during the present news window, but the judicial action itself occurred earlier in the month.

Scope of the temporary restraint

The ad interim relief operates in terms of identified prayer clauses until further orders. It addresses use of the NATURAL family marks, including identical or confusingly similar marks and variants, across online and offline identifiers such as websites, domains, emails, social media handles, trade names and promotional material.

The restraint also addresses alleged infringement of copyright in the artistic features of the marks and passing off through deceptive franchise promotions. The order therefore responds to a combined problem of brand impersonation and potential deception of consumers or prospective franchisees.

GoDaddy, the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology were included among defendants for the limited purpose of facilitating compliance and blocking of allegedly deceptive websites, according to the plaint as recorded in the order. The court did not pronounce a final judgment imposing damages or criminal punishment on those entities.

Significance for intellectual property law

The matter demonstrates the practical use of John Doe proceedings where alleged infringers operate behind anonymous digital identities. Courts may consider temporary relief against unidentified actors when the evidence establishes a sufficient prima facie case and the requested restraint is tied to identifiable unlawful conduct.

For examination purposes, the distinction between trade mark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off is important. Registered marks protect statutory trade mark rights; copyright concerns protected original artistic expression; passing off addresses misrepresentation damaging business goodwill. These causes of action can arise together but must not be treated as legally identical.

The available order concerns the Trade Marks Act and copyright protection but does not expressly identify individual statutory section numbers in its operative discussion. The article therefore links to the relevant Acts without inventing section citations. The interim application is listed for further consideration on 7 January 2027, and the ad interim protection continues subject to further orders.

Case Details

Relevant Bare Act