BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. _____OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF

UNIQUE FOODS PVT. LTD.

(PETITIONER)

VERSUS

MUKESH CONFECTIONARIES PVT. LTD.

(RESPONDENT)

________________________________________________________________
___________
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS
COMPANION JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page | 1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………...3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………..6

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………..7

ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………………..8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………….9

WRITTEN PLEADINGS
ISSUE I Whether the Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. raise jurisdictional issues for the first
time in an appeal before the High Court?

ISSUE II Is the word "CHOICE" in the registered trademark "MIDOS CHOICE" not distinctive,
disentitling exclusive usage rights?

ISSUE III Whether the Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. infringe upon Unique Foods Pvt.
Ltd.'s trademark "MIDOS CHOICE" by using "CHILDREN'S CHOICE"?

ISSUE IV Whether the Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. claim prior user rights for
"CHILDREN'S CHOICE" over "MIDOS CHOICE"?

ISSUE V Whether Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) infringe upon the copyright
in Unique Foods Pvt. Ltd.'s trademark?

Page | 2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

SC SUPREME COURT

HC HIGH COURT

SCJ SUPREME COURT JOURNAL

CrPc CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER

Ors. OTHERS

Anr. ANOTHER

IC INDIAN CASES

SEC SECTION

V. VERSUS

BomCr Bombay Criminal Cases

BomLr Bombay Law Reporter

Cri Lj Criminal Law Journal

B. CASES CITED FOR PETITIONER

1. Bahrain Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P. J. Pappu (AIR 1966 SC 634)

2. H. V. Nirmala v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation (2008(7) SCC 639)

3. Ahmed Oomerbhoy & Anr. v. Gautam Tank & Ors. (2007 SCC OnLine Del 1685)

4. Cadbury India Limited and others vs. Neeraj Food Products, 2005 SCC OnLine Del 158

5. Toyota Jidosha Kubushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd. and Ors

Page | 3
CASES CITED FOR RESPONDENT

1. Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors vs Dir. Health Services, Haryana High Court, 2010

2. Punjab Tractors Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Garg reported at 85 (2000) DLT 567

3. Kalindi Medicure Pvt. [Link]. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Anr. (supra)

4. Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories

C. OTHER AUTHORITES

a. Constitution of India, 1950

b. Civil Procedure Code, 1908

c. Patent Act

D. WEBSITES
a. [Link]
b. [Link]
c. [Link]
d. [Link]
e. [Link]

Page | 4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by the means of a special leave
petition, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India1.

1
Article 136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces

Page | 5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

-: Background: -

Unique Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) is a venerable company established in 1970 in Mumbai,
renowned for its iconic biscuit brands, MILKY and CRUNCHY, which have been beloved
snacks for over five decades. In 2007, driven by innovation and commitment to quality, the
company diversified its offerings and introduced a new product, Noodles, as a way to delight
families with a new culinary delight. To protect their creation, they registered the trademark
"MIDOS CHOICE®," characterized by bold black font on a pristine white background with
striking orange letters, symbolizing trust and quality in the food industry.

In 2012, Petitioner launched "MIDOS CHOICE" Noodles, aiming to extend their reach beyond
Mumbai, especially in Maharashtra. However, they faced unforeseen challenges when in 2010,
another company, Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent), introduced a similar
product named "CHILDREN'S CHOICE," with packaging that bore a close resemblance to
Petitioner's distinctive branding. This marked the beginning of a conflict that led to a legal
battle.

-: Dispute: -

The dispute arose when Petitioner, recognizing the threat to their hard-earned brand identity,
initiated a trademark infringement suit against Respondent in June 2013. This legal action was
not taken out of hostility but out of necessity to protect their brand legacy and the trust of their
loyal customers. Petitioner's argument was straightforward: they believed in the strength of
their trademark, "MIDOS CHOICE," which, to them, represented a commitment to providing
superior food choices.

Before the court, Petitioner sought validation of their innocence, dedication, and their right to
protect their brand. They implored the court to deliver justice, considering the emotional and
financial toll this legal battle had taken on them. They appealed to the court's wisdom to uphold
the integrity of their trademark and to safeguard the decades of hard work that had gone into
building their brand. In this dispute, Petitioner stood not as aggressors but as victims of
unfortunate circumstances, striving to preserve the sanctity of their brand and legacy.

Page | 6
 ISSUE RAISED

ISSUE I

Whether the Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. raise jurisdictional issues for the first time in
an appeal before the High Court?

ISSUE II

Is the word "CHOICE" in the registered trademark "MIDOS CHOICE" not distinctive, disentitling
exclusive usage rights?

ISSUE III

Whether the Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. infringe upon Unique Foods Pvt. Ltd.'s
trademark "MIDOS CHOICE" by using "CHILDREN'S CHOICE"?

ISSUE IV

Whether the Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. claim prior user rights for "CHILDREN'S
CHOICE" over "MIDOS CHOICE"?

ISSUE V
Whether Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) infringe upon the copyright in Unique
Foods Pvt. Ltd.'s trademark?

Page | 7
 ADVANCE ARGUMENTS FOR PETITIONER

ISSUE I

1. Whether the Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. raise jurisdictional issues for the first
time in an appeal before the High Court?

1.1 The Petitioner asserts, with unwavering conviction, that the Respondent should not be
permitted to do so. This position is rooted in established legal principles, procedural fairness,
and the fundamental tenets that underpin the administration of justice. Legal proceedings are
not a capricious exercise but rather a meticulously crafted system governed by rules and
principles to ensure fairness, efficiency, and the conclusive resolution of disputes. Allowing
the Respondent to introduce jurisdictional issues at this advanced stage of the proceedings
would not only contravene these principles but would also create a dangerous precedent that
could be exploited to undermine the very essence of our judicial system.

1.2 One of the core principles in the body of law that governs litigation is the doctrine of waiver.
This doctrine is built upon the concept that parties to a legal proceeding must adhere to
established procedural rules and timelines. When a party deliberately chooses not to raise a
particular issue during a lower court trial, it is presumed to have waived its right to raise that
issue in subsequent stages of the case, including on appeal. Respondent's failure to raise
jurisdictional issues during the initial trial was not a mere oversight but a strategic decision, a
tactical choice. This decision, the Petitioner contends, should have legal consequences.

1.3 The doctrine of waiver serves a crucial function in our legal system. It encourages parties
to raise all relevant issues at the earliest stage of litigation, thereby promoting procedural
efficiency and ensuring that disputes are resolved in a timely and orderly manner. Courts have
consistently held that issues not raised at the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal. This principle is enshrined in Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 2, a

2
Section 21 - Objections to jurisdiction
1) No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such
objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues
are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
(2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall
be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at
the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and
unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
(3) No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction

Page | 8
provision that has long been a cornerstone of civil litigation in India.

1.4 In the case of Bahrain Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P. J. Pappu (AIR 1966 SC 634)3, the Supreme
Court of India articulated the principle that objections related to the jurisdiction of a court must
be raised very early in the legal process, specifically during the initial court hearing and before
the substantive issues of the case are settled. This decision set a significant precedent,
emphasizing that parties should not be allowed to raise jurisdictional issues at later stages of
the litigation when they had the opportunity to do so at the outset.

Bahrain Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P. J. Pappu involved a situation where the location of a lawsuit
was challenged. The Supreme Court held that the objection to jurisdiction had to be made
promptly, and the failure to do so would result in a waiver of the right to object at a later stage.
This decision resonates strongly with the current case. The Respondent had a similar
opportunity to question the jurisdiction during the initial proceedings, and by not availing
themselves of this opportunity, they, in essence, waived their right to do so now.

The Petitioner respectfully seeks the attention of this Honorable Court to extract the pertinent
paragraph from the judgment: -

“It is therein articulated that objections pertaining to the jurisdiction of a court

must be raised with alacrity, at the earliest juncture of the legal process,
particularly during the initial court hearing and prior to the determination of
substantive issues germane to the case. The wisdom of this dictum is
unmistakable, for it upholds the sanctity of due process and ensures that the
fabric of justice remains steadfast, undisturbed by belated challenges to
jurisdiction.”

1.5 In the case of H. V. Nirmala v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation (2008(7) SCC 639)4.
the appellant had participated in a formal investigation process without expressing any
disagreement or raising concerns about the person appointed to conduct the inquiry, the inquiry
officer. However, when the case reached the High Court, the appellant suddenly raised
objections to the appointment of the inquiry officer. The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, ruled
that this objection could not be entertained at such a late stage. They held that it was
fundamentally unfair to raise such an objection after having participated in the investigation

shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the executing Court at
the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
3
(AIR 1966 SC 634),
4
(2008(7) SCC 639

Page | 9
without protest. The appellant could not demonstrate any harm caused to their case by the
inquiry officer, and it was far too late to bring up the objection at the appeal stage. The court's
reasoning was predicated on the need for parties to adhere to procedural rules and timelines
and not manipulate the process to their advantage.

The Petitioner respectfully seeks the attention of this Honorable Court to extract the pertinent
paragraph from the judgment:-

“The appellant, in this matter, has actively engaged in a formal

investigation process without any prior expression of disagreement or
raising concerns with regard to the appointment of the inquiry officer.
However, much to the Court's dismay, when the case eventually ascended
to the High Court, the appellant suddenly brought forth objections to the
appointment of the inquiry officer.

This Court, in its sagacious deliberations, is compelled to pronounce that

such belated objections could not be entertained. It was, in the eyes of
justice, fundamentally unfair to permit the raising of such objections after
the appellant had willingly participated in the investigative process without
any form of protest or dissent. No evidence of any detriment inflicted upon
the appellant's case by the inquiry officer was forthcoming, and the
objection was interposed at a juncture far too advanced to be countenanced
by the judicial process”.

1.6 It is essential to highlight the intersection of finality and fairness in legal proceedings. The
principle of finality is central to the integrity and efficiency of our judicial system. It ensures
that judgments are conclusive and that the resolution of disputes is not a perpetual process.
Once a matter has been adjudicated and a judgment rendered, it is expected to bring a sense of
closure and certainty to the parties involved. Allowing the Respondent to change their strategy
at this point, to introduce jurisdictional issues anew, would not only undermine the principle
of finality but would also be manifestly unfair to Petitioner

1.8 Petitioner had relied on Respondent’s earlier position. The Respondent had ample
opportunity to challenge the jurisdiction during the trial but chose not to do so. The Petitioner
had every reason to believe that the Respondent had accepted the court's jurisdiction, and to
permit a change in this stance at the appeal stage would be an egregious miscarriage of justice.
It would create an unsettling precedent where parties could strategically withhold objections

Page | 10
until a point in the litigation where they believe it is most advantageous, causing delays,
confusion, and unnecessary costs. Another fundamental consideration is procedural efficiency.
The efficient conduct of legal proceedings serves to save time and resources, not only for the
parties involved but also for the court. Allowing the Respondent to introduce jurisdictional
issues at the appeal stage would invariably result in unnecessary delays and additional costs.
The court must be steadfast in its commitment to the efficient administration of justice.

1.9 The interest of justice is best served when parties are required to raise all relevant issues at
the earliest possible juncture. This encourages a thorough and comprehensive resolution of
disputes, minimizes the potential for abuse, and ensures that the proceedings do not drag on
interminably. It is in the best interests of all stakeholders - the parties, the court, and the general
public - that litigation is conducted expeditiously and with the utmost regard for fairness and
efficiency.

1.10 In conclusion, the Petitioner’s stance remains unwavering: The Respondent should not be
permitted to raise jurisdictional issues for the first time in their appeal before the High Court.
Allowing them to do so would contravene established legal principles, undermine the principles
of finality and procedural efficiency, and be manifestly unjust to the Petitioner. The Respondent
had a clear opportunity to raise these issues at the trial stage but made a deliberate choice not
to do so. They must be held to that choice, and the court should uphold the time-tested doctrine
of waiver.

ISSUE II

2. Is the word "CHOICE" in the registered trademark "MIDOS CHOICE" not distinctive,
disentitling exclusive usage rights?
2.1 The Petitioner argues that, in the context of "MIDOS CHOICE," "CHOICE" is indeed
distinctive and should be entitled to exclusive usage rights.

2.2 The distinctiveness of a trademark is a complex and multifaceted concept that depends on
the context in which it is used and its recognition within the relevant market. In the specific
context of "MIDOS CHOICE," the word "CHOICE" serves as a unique identifier that
distinguishes this product from others, contributing to the creation of a specific brand identity.
The Petitioner has invested substantial time and resources in building a reputation around this
trademark, and, over time, consumers have come to associate "MIDOS CHOICE" with the
products and services offered by the Petitioner. As a result, the word "CHOICE" within this

Page | 11
trademark has acquired distinctiveness through continuous use and diligent marketing efforts,
making it easily recognizable to consumers.

2.3 Moreover, the fact that the Petitioner was able to successfully register "MIDOS CHOICE"
as a trademark with the relevant authorities is a testament to the distinctiveness and
protectability of the mark. Trademark registration is not merely an administrative formality; it
is a legal acknowledgment of the uniqueness and distinctiveness of a mark, further bolstering
our argument.

2.4 Before delving further into the distinctiveness of "CHOICE" in "MIDOS CHOICE," it is
essential to understand the fundamental role trademarks play in the commercial world.
Trademarks serve as vital tools for preventing confusion among consumers in the marketplace.
They enable consumers to identify and distinguish products and services of one business from
those of another. Protecting the word "CHOICE" within "MIDOS CHOICE" is not solely about
safeguarding the interests of the Petitioner, but it also pertains to the broader objective of
protecting consumers from potential confusion. The denial of protection to distinctive
trademarks like "MIDOS CHOICE" would discourage businesses from investing in branding
and promoting unique brands. This, in turn, could negatively impact consumers and the overall
economy by stifling innovation, competition, and consumer choice.

2.5 Trademark law recognizes that even common words can be part of a distinctive mark if
they are used distinctly and have acquired a secondary meaning. In the context of "MIDOS
CHOICE," "CHOICE" has indeed acquired such secondary meaning. Secondary meaning
occurs when consumers come to associate a word or phrase within a trademark with a specific
source of products or services, rather than interpreting it in its generic sense. In the case of
"MIDOS CHOICE," consumers have grown to recognize "CHOICE" as a symbol of the
company's products, underscoring its distinctiveness.

2.6 In the case of Ahmed Oomerbhoy & Anr. v. Gautam Tank & Ors. (2007 SCC OnLine
Del 1685)5, the registration of the word 'Postman' as well as the device mark 'Postman' was
contested. The Court concluded that since the impugned mark 'Super Postman' was similar, the
goods were the same, and the area in trade was also common, infringement and passing off
were established. The Petitioner respectfully seeks the attention of this Honorable Court to
extract the pertinent paragraph from the judgment: -

5
(2007 SCC OnLine Del 1685)

Page | 12
 ”In the circumstances, this Court must weigh plaintiffs' need against the
defendants' and determine where the 'balance of convenience lies and
preserve the status quo in respect of rights of the parties which will appear
on a prima facie case. This task is slightly more difficult because the
defendants have already commenced his enterprise. But while applying for
registration of their trade mark, the defendants had undertaken that if the
plaintiffs will raise any objection or opposition in future against their
applied Trademark `Super Postman' they will withdraw their application
for registration under Trademark "Super Postman" at once and without
any cause of delay.”

2.7 Returning to the specific issue at hand, let us delve into the distinctiveness of "CHOICE"
in "MIDOS CHOICE." The assessment of a trademark's distinctiveness must be contextual and
consider the specific market and consumers to whom it is directed. In the context of "MIDOS
CHOICE," "CHOICE" is used uniquely to distinguish this product from others. It creates a
brand identity that is associated with the specific attributes and qualities that Petitioner's
products offer. "CHOICE" suggests a deliberate selection, a level of quality, and a preference
that sets these products apart in the market. Consumers, over time, have come to associate
"MIDOS CHOICE" with Petitioner's products. The word "CHOICE" within this trademark has
become a symbol that reflects a particular level of quality and a distinct product offering. This
association, developed through years of marketing and product quality, has rendered
"CHOICE" distinctive within the context of Petitioner's product line. It has come to signify not
just a generic choice but a particular choice that is intrinsically tied to the brand image and
product attributes.

2.7 The fact that the Petitioner was able to successfully register "MIDOS CHOICE" as a
trademark is a strong endorsement of the mark's distinctiveness and uniqueness. Trademark
registration is a rigorous process, and authorities tasked with registering trademarks carefully
examine whether a mark is distinctive and capable of distinguishing goods or services.

2.8 It is this distinctiveness and the trust it instills in consumers that underpin the fundamental
principles of trademark law. The protection of trademarks, especially those that have acquired
secondary meaning and consumer recognition, is designed to prevent consumer confusion,
ensure the continuation of quality and consistency, and promote brand loyalty. In the case of
"MIDOS CHOICE," the protection of "CHOICE" is not only about preserving Petitioner's
brand but also about safeguarding the expectations of consumers who trust in the consistent

Page | 13
quality that this mark represents.

2.9 Denying protection to a distinctive mark like "MIDOS CHOICE" would not only
undermine the interests of the Petitioner but would also have broader implications for
trademark law and the commercial landscape. Trademarks are not simply badges of origin;
they are crucial tools that incentivize businesses to invest in branding, advertising.

ISSUE III

3. Whether the Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. infringe upon Unique Foods Pvt. Ltd.'s
trademark "MIDOS CHOICE" by using "CHILDREN'S CHOICE"?

3.1 The Petitioner asserts that the Petitioner, in fact, infringed upon its trademark, leading to
consumer confusion and brand dilution. Trademark infringement cases such as this hinge on
the determination of whether the use of a similar mark, in this case, "CHILDREN'S CHOICE,"
is likely to cause consumer confusion. Trademark law seeks to protect both the rights of
businesses and the interests of consumers. When trademarks are similar, especially in the same
product category, there is a substantial risk that consumers may mistakenly believe that the
products are related or originate from the same source. This confusion can result in harm to the
Petitioner’s reputation and sales.

3.2 Trademarks are a cornerstone of intellectual property law, designed to protect the interests
of businesses and consumers alike. They serve as critical tools for branding and marketing by
allowing businesses to establish distinct and recognizable identities for their products or
services. The core principle underlying trademark protection is the prevention of consumer
confusion.

3.3 In this case, the Respondent’s use of a name so closely resembling "MIDOS CHOICE"
runs counter to the fundamental purpose of trademark law. The similarities between the two
marks are not coincidental; they are striking and easily noticeable. This raises questions about
the Respondents intent and whether their choice of "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" was deliberately
aimed at capitalizing on the goodwill and recognition established by the Petitioner.

3.4 Consumer confusion is a key concern in trademark infringement cases. When consumers
encounter products or services with similar trademarks, they may be misled into thinking these
items are connected or share a common origin. Such confusion has the potential to harm the
Petitioner’s reputation and sales. Customers who previously associated the mark "MIDOS

Page | 14
CHOICE" with specific qualities or attributes of Petitioner's products may now inadvertently
transfer those associations to Respondent's "CHILDREN'S CHOICE."

3.5 Furthermore, Respondent’s use of a name so similar to "MIDOS CHOICE" results in the
dilution of the distinctiveness and uniqueness of Petitioner's trademark. A distinctive trademark
loses its value if others can freely use similar marks. The erosion of a trademark's
distinctiveness not only impacts the rights of the trademark holder but also negatively affects
consumer trust.

3.6 In the case of Cadbury India Limited and others vs. Neeraj Food Products, the Delhi High
Court issued a comprehensive order prohibiting the defendants, Neeraj Food Products and
related individuals and entities, from engaging in various activities that could lead to consumer
confusion and brand dilution:

1. Using the trademarks "JAMES" and "JAMES BOND" or any other trademark that might
confuse people into thinking it's related to the plaintiff's trademark "GEMS."

2. Employing packaging similar to the plaintiff's packaging (referred to as "pillow-packs" in

the case) that could also confuse customers.

3. Selling their goods as if they belong to the plaintiff or creating packaging that closely
resembles the plaintiff's.

4. Making copies or reproductions of the artistic work on the plaintiff's packaging.

The Petitioner respectfully seeks the attention of this Honorable Court to extract the pertinent
paragraph from the judgment:-

“Accordingly, the defendants, its proprietors, partners, directors,

servants, agents, distributors, franchisees, representatives and assigns are
hereby restrained from using the trade mark JAMES and/or JAMES
BOND and/or any other trade mark deceptively or confusingly similar to
the plaintiff's registered trade mark GEMS or in any other manner
infringing the registered trade mark GEMS of the plaintiffs and using the
pillow-packs attached as annexure B to the plaint or any other packaging
whatsoever which is deceptively or confusingly similar to the pillow-packs
of the plaintiffs attached as annexure A to the plaint.

The defendants, its proprietors, partners, directors, servants, agents,

Page | 15
 distributors, franchisees, representatives and assigns are also restrained
from passing off their goods of the plaintiff and from substantially
reproducing any material form the copyright in the artistic work of the
pillow-packs which has been annexed to the plaint.”

3.7 Petitioner’s use of the name "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" for their noodles constitutes
trademark infringement upon Petitioner's "MIDOS CHOICE." The striking similarities
between the two trademarks create a substantial risk of confusion among consumers, leading
to the dilution of the uniqueness and distinctiveness of Petitioner's mark. Trademark law exists
to prevent such confusion and protect businesses from unfair competition.

ISSUE IV

4. Whether the Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. claim prior user rights for
"CHILDREN'S CHOICE" over "MIDOS CHOICE"?

4.1 The Petitioner argues that Respondent cannot validly assert prior user rights. The Petitioner
has successfully registered "MIDOS CHOICE" as a trademark. Trademark registration is a
crucial legal step that establishes evidence of priority and ownership. By registering "MIDOS
CHOICE," Petitioner has followed the prescribed legal procedure for protecting their
trademark. In contrast, Respondent did not register "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" as a trademark,
which diminishes their claim to prior use. "MIDOS CHOICE" has been in use by the Petitioner
since 2012, and consumers have come to recognize it as a distinct mark associated with its
products. There is no substantial evidence to suggest that "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" was
widely recognized by the public before Petitioner’s use of "MIDOS CHOICE." Consumer
recognition plays a pivotal role in trademark law, and it is evident that "MIDOS CHOICE" had
gained recognition among consumers before the introduction of "CHILDREN'S CHOICE."

4.2 Respondent bears the burden of providing clear and convincing evidence of prior use to
establish their claim of prior user rights. Mere assertions of prior use, without substantial
evidence to substantiate the claim, should not be accepted by the Court. The law requires that
claims of prior use be substantiated with concrete evidence.

4.3 While it is true that the Respondent started using "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" in 2010, and
Petitioner began using "MIDOS CHOICE" in 2012, the timing of use alone does not determine
prior use. Respondent must demonstrate that they used the mark "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" in
a manner that it became distinctive before Petitioner use of "MIDOS CHOICE." Merely using

Page | 16
a mark in commerce does not necessarily imply prior use rights; the mark must have acquired
distinctiveness, such that it is recognized by the relevant consuming public.

4.4 Respondent’s claim of prior use for "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" conflicts with Petitioner’s
registered trademark "MIDOS CHOICE." It is a well-established principle in trademark law
that registered trademarks generally enjoy stronger protection compared to unregistered ones.
Respondent’s failure to register "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" diminishes their claim of prior user
rights, particularly in the face of Petitioner's registered trademark.

4.5 Trademark law is primarily designed to prevent consumer confusion. Allowing

Respondent’s to claim prior user rights for "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" would create significant
confusion among consumers, as they might not be able to distinguish between products bearing
similar names. Such confusion could harm the interests of both businesses and consumers, as
it blurs the lines of distinction between products in the marketplace.

4.6 In the case of Toyota Jidosha Kubushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd. and Ors,
the Supreme Court of India held that prior use, if not in the same territory as the Defendant and
the jurisdiction of the passing off action, cannot be claimed as prior use. The Petitioner
respectfully seeks the attention of this Honorable Court to extract the pertinent paragraph from
the judgment:-

”If goodwill or reputation in the particular jurisdiction (in India) is not

established by the plaintiff, no other issue really would need any further
examination to determine the extent of the plaintiff’s right in the action of
passing off that it had brought against the defendants in the Delhi High
Court. Consequently, even if we are to disagree with the view of the
Division Bench of the High Court in accepting the defendant’s version of
the origin of the mark ‘Prius’, the eventual conclusion of the Division
Bench will, nonetheless, have to be sustained. We cannot help but also to
observe that in the present case the plaintiff’s delayed approach to the
Courts has remained unexplained. Such delay cannot be allowed to work
to the prejudice of the defendants who had kept on using its registered
mark to market its goods during the inordinately long period of silence
maintained by the plaintiff”

4.7 Respondent cannot legitimately claim prior user rights for "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" over
Petitioner's "MIDOS CHOICE." Petitioner has taken the proper legal steps to protect their

Page | 17
trademark by registering "MIDOS CHOICE." There is no substantial evidence to support
Respondent's claim of prior use or distinctiveness of "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" before the
introduction of "MIDOS CHOICE." Furthermore, "MIDOS CHOICE" has gained recognition
among consumers, and it is essential to prioritize the protection of registered trademarks.

4.8 Granting prior user rights to Respondent would undermine the principles of trademark
registration and lead to confusion in the marketplace. Therefore, it is our earnest request that
the Court uphold Petitioner’s rights to "MIDOS CHOICE" and dismiss Respondent's claim of
prior user rights for "CHILDREN'S CHOICE." This decision not only aligns with established
principles of trademark law but also serves the broader interests of businesses and consumers
alike by ensuring clarity, fairness, and the protection of registered trademarks.

ISSUE V

5. Whether Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) infringe upon the copyright
in Unique Foods Pvt. Ltd.'s trademark?

5.1 Petitioner argues that Respondent has indeed infringed upon Petitioner’s trademark's
copyright, which includes the unique design and elements associated with it. Copyright
protection can extend to the unique design elements and artistic aspects of a trademark.
Petitioner’s trademark "MIDOS CHOICE" encompasses specific design elements that can be
protected under copyright law. These design elements constitute a significant part of the overall
brand identity and visual representation of the product.

5.2 Copyright infringement occurs when someone uses a substantially similar design or artistic
elements to those protected by the copyright holder. Respondent’s use of "CHILDREN'S
CHOICE" with a design that closely resembles the design of "MIDOS CHOICE" constitutes
copyright infringement.

5.3 Respondent’s packaging and design for "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" Noodles exhibit a
striking visual resemblance to Petitioner's packaging and design for "MIDOS CHOICE"
Noodles. The similarity in design elements is evident, suggesting that Respondent may have
copied Petitioner's copyrighted design elements. This visual similarity can lead to consumer
confusion, as consumers may erroneously believe that "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" and "MIDOS
CHOICE" are related products or originate from the same source.

5.4 The confusion generated by the similarity in design is harmful to Petitioner's brand and

Page | 18
reputation. When consumers are unable to distinguish between similar products due to design
elements, it undermines the distinctiveness and recognition of Petitioner’s brand. This
confusion can erode consumer trust and potentially lead to a loss of business for Petitioner.
Copyright law is in place to protect the creative and artistic elements of intellectual property,
and the design elements of "MIDOS CHOICE" are the result of creative effort and investment
by Petitioner’s. These elements are integral to the brand's identity and recognition among
consumers.

5.5 It is the responsibility of Respondent to demonstrate that their use of a similar design does
not infringe upon Petitioner's copyright. If Respondent cannot convincingly show that their
design is substantially different from the copyrighted design elements of "MIDOS CHOICE,"
it may be deemed an infringement.

5.6 In the case of Sentini Bio Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/S. Allied Blender & Distillers, it was
determined that the trademarks and labels used by the appellant for their product "Officer's
Special" were very similar to those used by the respondent for "Officer's Choice." This
similarity was likely to confuse consumers, as people might mistake one product for the other.

As a result, the court concluded that the appellant's use of their trademark and label constituted
an infringement of the respondent's registered trademarks. Additionally, the appellant's actions
were found to amount to "passing off," an unfair and deceptive practice, as they were
attempting to benefit from the reputation and goodwill associated with the respondent's
"Officer's Choice" marks and labels. The Petitioner respectfully seeks the attention of this
Honorable Court to extract the pertinent paragraph from the judgment:-

“Based on the above discussion, we prima-facie conclude that the appellant‟s mark and label
for “Officer‟s Special‟ are deceptively similar to the respondent‟s mark and labels 1, 2, 3
and 5 for „Officer‟s Choice‟ and are likely to cause confusion among consumers. The
appellant‟s impugned mark and label amount to infringement of the respondent‟s registered
trademarks No.538927 and 610451 and passing off of the mark „Officer‟s Choice‟ and labels
No.1, 2, 3 and 5”.

5.7 Respondent's use of "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" with a design that is strikingly similar to
Petitioner's "MIDOS CHOICE" Noodles may indeed constitute copyright infringement.
Copyright law exists to protect the creative and artistic elements of intellectual property, and
Petitioner holds copyright in their trademark's design elements.

5.8 The striking similarity in design can confuse consumers and harm Petitioner's brand. It is

Page | 19
Respondent's responsibility to demonstrate that their design is not substantially similar to
Petitioner's copyrighted elements. Therefore, it is our earnest request that the Court consider
the possibility of copyright infringement in this case and take appropriate action to protect
Petitioner's rights and brand integrity. Such action aligns with established principles of
copyright and trademark law and serves the interests of both businesses and consumers by
safeguarding the integrity of creative and artistic elements in trademarks.

Page | 20
 PRAYER BY THE PETITIONER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUED RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT.

1. Accept the Special Leave Petition.

2. Quash the Order and Judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Mumbai accepting the appeal of the Respondent.

3. Declare that the Respondent has infringed the Petitioner's trademark "KIDO'S
CHOICE" by using the trademark "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" for its noodles.

4. Grant a permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from using the

trademark "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" or any other trademark that is deceptively like
the Petitioner's trademark "KIDO'S CHOICE" in relation to noodles.

5. Award damages to the Petitioner for the loss and damage suffered by it as a
result of the Respondent's trademark infringement.

6. Direct the Respondent to pay the Petitioner's costs and expenses of the
litigation.

AND PASS ANY ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE

All of which is humbly prayed. Counsel for Petitioner

Page | 21
 ADVANCE ARGUMENTS FOR RESPONDENT

ISSUE I

1. Whether the Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. raise jurisdictional issues for the first
time in an appeal before the High Court?

1.1 The Respondent stands before this esteemed court, contending that it is well within its legal
rights to raise jurisdictional issues for the first time in an appeal before the High Court. It’s
assertion is grounded in the very bedrock of the legal system: the pursuit of justice. While it is
generally preferred for parties to raise jurisdictional issues at the earliest opportunity, The
Respondent maintains that it is not an inflexible requirement.

1.2 It is vital to understand that justice is not an abstract concept but a living, breathing force
that operates through our legal system. It adapts to the complexities and nuances of each case,
and for this reason, procedural flexibility must be its guiding principle. In the pursuit of justice,
it is imperative that we remain ever vigilant against the imposition of undue hardship and the
elevation of procedural technicalities above the merits of the case. This is precisely the reason
The Respondent advocates for the allowance of raising jurisdictional issues during the appeal
before the High Court.

1.3 Jurisdictional issues are often intricate and multifaceted, akin to a labyrinthine puzzle where
every piece must fit perfectly for justice to be served. It is not always evident at the trial court
level whether a jurisdictional issue exists, and parties may discover such issues only as the case
unfolds. The complexity of these matters necessitates a degree of flexibility in raising them at
the appellate stage. In our pursuit of justice, we must ensure that no party is unduly prejudiced
by strict procedural formalities.

1.4 Legal history is replete with instances where jurisdictional issues were allowed to be raised
at the appellate stage. Courts, guided by the beacon of justice, have consistently exercised their
discretion in the interest of fairness and the efficient administration of justice. This approach
aligns with the core principles of our legal system, which are rooted in the pursuit of truth and
fairness. In this light, the exercise of discretion to entertain jurisdictional issues on appeal is
not only reasonable but essential.

In the case of Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors vs Dir. Health Services, Haryana, it was
emphatically held that it is a well-established principle of law that the question of jurisdiction

Page | 22
can be invoked at any stage. This legal precedent, supports The Respondent Contention and is
well within its rights to raise jurisdictional issues at this juncture. The wisdom of this precedent
stems from the recognition that justice cannot be bound by rigid timelines or procedural
formalities. It flows from the understanding that our legal system must remain adaptable to the
evolving nature of disputes and the complexities they entail.

1.5 It is also crucial to note that The Respondent have not acted capriciously or without
consideration. The Respondent has, in its commitment to fairness, provided adequate notice to
UFP Ltd. regarding the jurisdictional concerns we intend to raise in this appeal. This proactive
step ensured that UFP Ltd. had ample time to prepare, respond, and present their arguments in
a fair and timely manner. The Respondent stand firmly on the side of transparency and fairness,
striving to uphold the principles that underpin our legal system.

1.6 In conclusion, the case is not merely a legal dispute but a testament to the commitment of
The Respondent to justice. The Respondent urges this Honorable court to recognize the
importance of procedural flexibility in the pursuit of justice. The Respondent cites legal
precedent, the complexities inherent in jurisdictional issues, and commitment to transparency
as pillars of their argument. The quest for justice does not waver; it persists in the face of
adversity and calls for the recognition of the principles of fairness and adaptability that form
the bedrock of our legal system. In allowing the presentation of jurisdictional issues at this
appellate stage, this court would be upholding the spirit of justice, ensuring that no party is
unjustly prejudiced, and delivering a verdict that resonates with the ideals of our legal system.
We humbly beseech this court to consider our argument and render a decision that honors
justice above all.

ISSUE II

2. Is the word "CHOICE" in the registered trademark "MIDOS CHOICE" not distinctive,
disentitling exclusive usage rights?

2.1 The Respondent contends that the word "CHOICE" in UFP Ltd.'s registered trademark
"MIDOS CHOICE" is not distinctive and does not disentitle The Respondent to use a similar
word in their trademark "CHILDREN'S CHOICE." The following arguments support The
Respondent's position. The Respondent argues that the word "CHOICE" is inherently
descriptive and commonly used in the food industry. It denotes the availability of options or
selections for consumers. Descriptive words should not be granted exclusive usage rights. In

Page | 23
this context, "CHOICE" should be seen as a generic term rather than a distinctive element.

2.2 The primary purpose of a trademark is to help consumers distinguish between products or
services. In the case of "CHOICE," consumers are likely to perceive it as a common term that
does not indicate the origin of a product. The Respondent maintains that consumers are
accustomed to seeing terms like "CHOICE" in various product names, and therefore, it does
not create confusion or association with a specific brand.

2.3 Trademark law aims to strike a balance between protecting the rights of brand owners and
preserving competition and consumer choice. The Respondent argues that granting exclusive
rights over the word "CHOICE" in this context would stifle competition and limit the ability
of other businesses to use a common term in their product names. The Respondent asserts that
trademarks should be evaluated in their entirety, considering all the elements and distinctive
features of the mark. UFP Ltd.'s trademark includes the distinctive word "MIDOS," which
should be the focal point of their protection. The Respondent's "CHILDREN'S CHOICE"
clearly includes an additional, distinguishing element, "CHILDREN'S," which sets it apart
from "MIDOS CHOICE."

2.4 In Punjab Tractors Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Garg reported at 85 (2000) DLT 567, the
Hon'ble Judge held that the criteria for determining what is likely to deceive or cause confusion
is whether the trade mark by its resemblance to another trade mark already on the register is
likely to deceive in the normal course of its legitimate use in the trade and that the goods are
such that by virtue of some similarity, affinity or other circumstance the purchasing public will
consider them as coming from the same source if marketed under similar trademarks. The
approach has to be from a business and commercial point of view and the test of sameness and
description should be a business and practical test. In judging the nature and composition of
the goods, their respective usages and functions and the trade channels through which they are
bought and sold are to be taken notice of.

2.6 In conclusion, The Respondent argues that the word "CHOICE" in UFP Ltd.'s registered
trademark "MIDOS CHOICE" is not distinctive and does not disentitle other businesses from
using similar terms in their trademarks. The Respondent maintains that the overarching
principles of trademark law, which aim to balance the rights of brand owners with the need for
competition and consumer choice, support their right to use the term "CHOICE" in their
product name "CHILDREN'S CHOICE."

Page | 24
 ISSUE III

Whether the Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. infringe upon Unique Foods Pvt. Ltd.'s
trademark "MIDOS CHOICE" by using "CHILDREN'S CHOICE"?

3.1 The Respondent asserts that they did not infringe UFP Ltd.'s trademark "MIDOS CHOICE"
by using the mark "CHILDREN'S CHOICE." The following arguments support The
Respondent's position. The Respondent highlights that the two trademarks, "MIDOS CHOICE"
and "CHILDREN'S CHOICE," are distinct in several ways. The addition of the word
"CHILDREN" significantly differentiates the trademarks, making them easily distinguishable
from one another. Consumers are likely to recognize and remember these differences, reducing
the likelihood of confusion.

3.2 Trademark infringement cases often revolve around the likelihood of consumer confusion.
The Respondent argues that consumers are reasonably intelligent and discerning, and they
would not mistake "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" for "MIDOS CHOICE." These products are
different in nature and have different target demographics, further minimizing the likelihood
of confusion.

3.3 Respondent primarily markets biscuits under the brands MILKY and CRUNCHY, and they
introduced "MIDOS CHOICE" Noodles in 2012. On the other hand, The Respondent is a
chocolate manufacturer and introduced "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" products in a different
category. The Respondent contends that there is no overlap in the core product categories,
reducing the potential for confusion in the marketplace. The target audience for "MIDOS
CHOICE" Noodles and "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" products is different. The Respondent's
products are primarily aimed at children, while UFP Ltd.'s primary products are biscuits and
noodles, catering to a broader consumer base. The Respondent argues that the difference in
target audiences further diminishes the likelihood of confusion.

3.4 The Respondent maintains that they did not adopt the "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" mark with
the intent to infringe upon UFP Ltd.'s trademark. There is no evidence of bad faith on the part
of The Respondent They argue that trademark infringement typically requires a showing of
intentional wrongdoing, which is absent in this case.

In the case of Kalindi Medicure Pvt. [Link]. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Anr. (supra) the

Page | 25
Court was dealing with the trade name LOPRIN. The plaintiff‟s registered trademark was
LOPRIN and the defendant had adopted the mark LOPARIN. The drug of the plaintiff LOPRIN
was in tablet form for treatment of cardiological problems whereas the drug of the defendant
LOPARIN was an injection for intra vascular use and a critical care medicine used in acute
coronary syndrome. The prescriber for the plaintiff‟s medicine were general practitioners
whereas prescriber for the drug of the defendant were cardiac and other critical care specialist.
There was a vast difference in the cost of the two drugs. On the facts of the case the Court came
to a conclusion that there was no likelihood of any confusion whatsoever. Further, the
defendant already had a huge sales turn-over of `8 crores in less than a year and hence the
balance of convenience was said to be in favour of the defendant. It was in those facts that the
Court vacated the injunction/stay order.

3.5 In conclusion, The Respondent contends that they did not infringe UFP Ltd.'s trademark
"MIDOS CHOICE" by using the mark "CHILDREN'S CHOICE." The distinctive differences
between the two marks, the lack of overlap in product categories, the distinct target audiences,
and the absence of bad faith all support their position that there is no likelihood of consumer
confusion. Trademark law aims to protect against genuine confusion, and The Respondent
argues that this fundamental requirement has not been met in this case.

ISSUE IV

Whether the Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. claim prior user rights for
"CHILDREN'S CHOICE" over "MIDOS CHOICE"?

4.1 The Respondent asserts that they have valid prior user rights for the mark "CHILDREN'S
CHOICE" over "MIDOS CHOICE" and should not be subject to trademark infringement
claims by UFP Ltd. The following arguments support The Respondent's position. The
Respondent introduced "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" products in 2010, two years before UFP Ltd.
began marketing "MIDOS CHOICE" Noodles in 2012. This establishes that The Respondent
had prior use of their trademark, and they had been actively using it in commerce. Prior use of
a mark is a recognized defense in trademark disputes.

4.2 The Respondent argues that they adopted and used the "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" mark in
good faith, without knowledge of UFP Ltd.'s impending use of the "MIDOS CHOICE" mark

Page | 26
for noodles. Good faith use is a crucial factor in determining prior user rights, and The
Respondent contends that they met this requirement.

4.3 The Respondent may highlight that there has been no evidence of consumer confusion
between "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" and "MIDOS CHOICE." The absence of confusion
supports the idea that they can coexist in the market without infringing upon each other's
trademark rights. Trademark law is intended to protect consumers from confusion and
deception while also preserving competition in the marketplace. Allowing The Respondent to
use their established mark "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" protects competition and consumer
choice by preventing the monopolization of a commonly used term.

4.4 The Respondent may argue that it would be inequitable to prevent them from using
"CHILDREN'S CHOICE" after they had been using it in good faith for a considerable period,
especially when their product category and target audience differ significantly from UFP Ltd.'s.

In the case of N.R. Dongre and Ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation and Or6s it was held that a
passing off action can be brought by a prior user even against a registered holder of a trademark.

4.5 In conclusion, The Respondent asserts that they have valid prior user rights for the mark
"CHILDREN'S CHOICE" over "MIDOS CHOICE." They emphasize that the prior use, good
faith adoption, and lack of confusion support their position. Trademark law is designed to
protect consumers and promote competition, and The Respondent argues that their prior use of
the mark aligns with these fundamental objectives. As such, they contend that they should not
be subject to trademark infringement claims by UFP Ltd.

ISSUE V

Whether Mukesh Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) infringe upon the copyright in
Unique Foods Pvt. Ltd.'s trademark?

5.1 The Respondent argues that they did not infringe the copyright in UFP Ltd.'s trademark
"MIDOS CHOICE." They contend that trademark law and copyright law are distinct, and the
use of a similar mark, in this case, "CHILDREN'S CHOICE," does not necessarily amount to
copyright infringement. The following arguments support The Respondent's position:

Page | 27
5.2 Trademarks and copyrights serve different purposes and are protected under separate legal
frameworks. Trademarks are primarily concerned with protecting consumers from confusion
about the source of goods or services, while copyrights protect creative and original works of
authorship. The Respondent argues that UFP Ltd.'s claim of copyright infringement in a
trademark context blurs the line between these distinct protections.

5.3 The Respondent may contend that trademarks typically lack the originality and creative
expression associated with copyrighted works. UFP Ltd.'s "MIDOS CHOICE" mark, while
distinctive for trademark purposes, may not meet the threshold of originality required for
copyright protection. The Respondent asserts that the "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" mark is
fundamentally different from "MIDOS CHOICE," and there is no copying of a copyrighted
work. Trademarks often serve a functional and descriptive role, helping consumers identify
and select products or services. The Respondent argues that the primary function of a trademark
is not to serve as a creative or artistic work deserving of copyright protection. Instead, it is a
commercial indicator that helps consumers make purchasing decisions.

5.4 In copyright infringement cases, a substantial similarity between the allegedly infringing
work and the copyrighted work is typically required. The Respondent emphasizes that there is
no substantial similarity between "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" and "MIDOS CHOICE." They are
distinct in terms of wording, visual presentation, and overall concept. To establish copyright
infringement, one typically needs to demonstrate that the alleged infringer directly copied or
reproduced a copyrighted work. The Respondent argues that they did not copy UFP Ltd.'s
trademark. The fact that "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" uses different wording, design, and context
demonstrates a lack of copying.

5.5 The Respondent may argue that the use of the word "CHOICE" in "CHILDREN'S
CHOICE" is either a fair use or a form of parody, which are protected under copyright law. If
they can demonstrate that their use of "CHOICE" is transformative and serves a different
purpose, it may not be considered copyright infringement.

In the case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories
which has spelt out the test regarding burden of proof. It is held that the Court is required to,
by comparison of two marks, ascertain the issue of infringement - degree of resemblance which
is necessary to exist to cause deception not being capable of definition by laying down objective
standards. The resemblance may be phonetic, visual or in the basic idea represented by the
plaintiff's mark. It is further held that the purpose of comparison is for determining whether the

Page | 28
essential features of the trade mark of plaintiff is used by that of the defendant.

5.6 In conclusion, The Respondent contends that the use of the "CHILDREN'S CHOICE" mark
does not infringe the copyright in UFP Ltd.'s trademark "MIDOS CHOICE." They argue that
trademark and copyright laws are separate and distinct, and the use of a similar mark does not
automatically equate to copyright infringement. The Respondent emphasizes the differences
between the marks and asserts that there is no evidence of copying or substantial similarity to
support a copyright infringement claim.

Page | 29
 PRAYERS BY THE RESPONDENT

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUED RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT

1. Reject, the Special Leave Petition

2. A declaration that the Respondent is entitled to use the trademark "KIDO'S

CHOICE" for its noodles.

3. To award costs to the Respondent.

AND PASS ANY ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

All of which is humbly prayed. Counsel for Respondent

Page | 30