The Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v. Jose George

seo835
Aug 23
4 min read

Milk is a constant product in every household, no matter what class they belong to. It falls in the category of fast-moving consumer goods, popularly referred to as FMCG. If we go back in time, we observe that before the existence of companies that undertook milk production, it was a daily practice in Indian households to source their milk requirements directly from the animal farm. With the British colonising our country, this practice came to an end and milk requirements soon began to be met by factories and production houses.¹

With this shift, simple products that we use in day-to-day life came to be associated with brands and popular logos. Therefore, the protection of these distinctive trademarks became an imperative need. Day-to-day products like tea came to be associated with the Red Label brand, and having biscuits became synonymous with Parle-G. The brand identity was often identified with these popular products and soon became a staple in Indian households.

Facts of the case

The case of Kerala Coop. Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Jose George, is one such case that analysed the role of protection of trademarks. The parties involved in the case Kerala Coop.

Milk Marketing Federation alleged that Jose George used the trademark ‘Milnna’ as a copy of their registered trademark, ‘Milma’ and is misleading the public to trade upon the reputation and goodwill of their brand. The plaintiff Kerala Coop. was established in Kerala in the 1980s and has since gained widespread recognition. They had registered themselves with the Kerala Cooperatives Societies Act, of 1969. The aforesaid trademark was registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, with trademark No. 437327 with effect from 06/05/1985,

and the same is valid till 06/05/2026.

The design and font of the logo, along with the unique choice of lettering, provide them a distinctive outlook and separate them from other brands. Milk products fall under class 29 of the Trademark Schedule.

Timeline

On 11th Dec, 2021, a media channel, Focus News TV posted a video on Facebook of Jose George, which advertised selling products similar to those of Kerala cooperative.

They used a deceptively similar logo and a similar font. They changed the word ‘Milma’ to ‘Milnna’. The court claimed that this impinged on the rights of the registered proprietor. The plaintiff in 2024 approached the Court of Principal Commercial Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. They claimed that they suffered irreparable damages due to this trademark infringement.⁴

Issues before the court

1) Whether the defendant’s use of a deceptively similar mark infringed the registered trademark "Milma"?

2) Whether the plaintiff had established sufficient goodwill and reputation in the "Milma" trademark to claim protection under passing off.3) Whether the defendant’s use of the mark was likely to cause confusion or deception among the public?

Arguments advanced by the petitioner

Kerala Coop Society believed that this false advertisement caused significant damage to the company’s goodwill and reputation. KCMMF contended that it had been using the “Milma” trademark since 1985, and had acquired widespread recognition across Kerala and other southern states. As per their argument, “Milma” was not just a name but a trusted household brand, symbolising quality and purity in dairy products.

They had invested significantly in advertising, packaging, and maintaining consistent product quality under this mark. The logo, word mark, and specific font style were all carefully designed and registered, giving the brand a distinctive identity in the marketplace.

The plaintiff submitted that Jose George's use of the mark “Milnna” was deceptively similar to “Milma,” not just phonetically but also visually. The font and colour palette closely resembled that of the registered mark. The suffix "-nna" was argued to be confusingly close to "-ma", especially when spoken aloud or seen briefly in passing by an average consumer of imperfect recollection, a standard recognised in Indian trademark jurisprudence.

Rulings of the court

The Court of the Principal Commercial Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, ruled in favour of the plaintiff, the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (KCMMF). The court held that the use of the mark “Milnna” by the defendant, Jose George, was a clear case of trademark infringement under Section 29(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, and also amounted to passing off. The section states that ,“A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark.” ⁵.

The court emphasized that even a minor variation in spelling does not absolve liability if the overall impression of the mark is deceptively similar. It reaffirmed that the likelihood of confusion among the public is sufficient to establish infringement, regardless of actual intent. Thus, the defendant’s use of “Milnna” was held to unlawfully capitalize on the goodwill of the well-established “Milma” brand.

Conclusion

Poultry or farm products fall under class 29 of goods and services.⁶ These goods used on a daily basis hold a significant position in a common man’s routine. The court in this case established that local players must respect brand identities and come up with their own creative ways of marketing rather than adopting a well known brand’s identity. The court in this case also established phonetic and visual similarity between ‘Milma’ and ‘Milnna’ and decided to protect consumer identity. In India, consumers largely rely on logos and brands for trusted products. Especially in rural areas where literacy about trademarks isn’t present, brand logos become symbols of trust. Consumers purchase products from similar looking brands thinking they are affiliated with the market players, often misinterpreting these brands for the major players. This case firmly reiterated the same principle that brand identity is earned through hard work and years of earning consumer protection rather than an overnight brand creation.

Author: Aabha Talekar, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.