‘RoohAfza’ vs ‘DilAfza’ : Delhi High Court has denied interim relief to RoohAfza against the makers of DilAfza

According to the Delhi High Court, the average consumer understands the distinction between “heart” and “soul.” The High Court refused to award RoohAfza relief in the trademark lawsuit.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea of ​​Hamdard National Foundation (India), the maker of the popular ‘RoohAfza’ sherbet, in which there was a demand to stop marketing its syrup by another company was named ‘DilAfza’.

There may be emotions involved in buying a bottle of sherbet, but not to the point that the customer is confused between the words ‘rooh’ and ‘dil,’ which mean’soul’ and ‘heart,’ according to Justice Asha Menon.

Hamdard can claim the whole term ‘RoohAfza,’ but not any of the two syllables that make up the trademark, according to Justice Menon.

Hamdard National Foundation (India) filed suit against ‘DilAfza’

Hamdard Dispensary and Hamdard National Foundation (India) filed a lawsuit in the High Court, claiming that their trademark ‘RoohAfza’ had been derogated and diluted by Sadar Laboratories Pvt Ltd.’s ‘DilAfza’. The plaintiff, who was seeking an injunction against the respondent, claimed that the two items were deceptively similar since the phrases ‘dil’ and ‘rooh’ both convey profound sentiments, and the word ‘afza’ is used in both.

The court said that the common consumer cannot get confused in the words ‘Dil’ and ‘Rooh’.

Justice Asha Menon stated that while Hamdard has built a large name and goodwill around its trademark ‘RoohAfza,’ it is illogical to suppose that the usage of the phrases ‘Rooh’ and ‘Dil’ would cause confusion.  According to the Court ,  “there can be no doubt for the average customer, the words ‘dil’ and ‘rooh’ do not mean the same thing”.

Court rejected the application filed for interim relief

The Bench further observed that in any case, those who support this deep sentiment would be the first to be able to differentiate between ‘soul’ and ‘dil’. However, we are concerned about the common consumer for whom the common usage of the words ‘dil’ and ‘rooh’ do not have much in common. Making these observations, the bench dismissed the application for interim relief. Along with this, the bench directed the respondent to keep a correct account of the sale of DilAfza Sharbat during the pendency of the case. At the same time, it was also said that on a quarterly basis, its information will have to be filed in the court.


*Dr. Deepak Miglani, Email id.:- [email protected]

Leave a Comment