Introduction

The Principal Commercial Court in Thiruvananthapuram has rendered a resounding decision in favour of the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation, or Milma, in a significant win for the protection of cooperative brand identification and the enforcement of intellectual property. After determining that a private dairy company called "Milnna" had unlawfully violated Milma's registered trademark by replicating its unique trade dress and packaging, the court granted Milma ₹1 crore in damages. In order to deceive customers and illegally profit from Milma's well-earned name, goodwill, and decades-long market presence, the court ruled that Milnna's branding was deceptively similar and amounted to unauthorised imitation. This landmark decision reinforces the legal sanctity of trademark rights in India and sets a strong precedent for cooperative bodies and businesses seeking redress against brand dilution and unfair trade practices.

Milma vs Milnna: The Case at a Glance – An Overview

The court battle between Jose George, the owner of the private dairy brand "Milnna," and the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation (often referred to as Milma) highlights how crucial it is to protect trademarks and brand identification in India's cutthroat dairy industry.
The dispute started when Jose George introduced milk and related dairy products under the Milnna brand, using packaging, branding, and colour schemes that were remarkably similar to Milma's. The trade dress and design of the product packaging, which could easily lead consumers to believe that the two products were related or came from the same source, were also examples of this imitation. This went beyond the name's phonetic similarity, where Milnna mirrored Milma with only minor variations.

This measure was strongly opposed by Milma, a reputable cooperative society that has been using a registered trademark since 1985. The company, which has amassed significant consumer trust and brand equity over the years, contended that Milnna's branding strategy was an attempt to unfairly profit on Milma's goodwill and a clear instance of trademark infringement. Asserting that such actions amounted to fraud, dilution of trademark value, and probable customer deception, Milma petitioned the Principal Thiruvananthapuram Commercial Court for a perpetual prohibitory injunction to prevent Milnna from using the confusingly identical name and packaging. In addition, the plaintiff sought ₹1 crore in damages for goodwill and reputational harm. It provides a deeper comprehension of how courts interpret trademark rights, particularly in relation to name and packaging similarities, and the obligation of companies to preserve brand uniqueness without violating established identities.

Court’s Observations: A Clear Case of Deceptive Imitation

The Principal Thiruvananthapuram Commercial Court, presided over by Judge Mariam Salomi, found Jose George, the defendant, guilty of wilful trademark infringement and unfair competition in a forceful and definitive ruling. According to the court, the use of the name Milnna and its remarkably similar packaging amounted to a deliberate attempt to imitate Milma's well-known brand identity, deceiving customers and unfairly profiting from the goodwill that the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation had built up over many years.Judge Salomi claimed that there was no discernible difference between the two brands in the eyes of the typical customer and specifically referred to the contested mark "Milnna" as a "blatant copy" of Milma's registered trademark and packaging.

In the judgment, the Court stated: “The defendant is profiting off the goodwill and reputation earned by the plaintiff... The impugned mark ‘Milnna’ is a blatant copy of the prior registered trademark of the plaintiff.”

Milnna was trying to profit financially from the consumer confidence, loyalty, and recognition that Milma had laboriously developed over almost forty years, and this finding pointed to a heinous act of unfair enrichment. With Trademark No. 437327, Milma's trademark was registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. It was given legal protection on May 6, 1985, and it will continue to be so until May 6, 2026. The cooperative strengthened its unique character in Kerala's dairy industry and worldwide by creating and safeguarding several Milma brand variations throughout the years. Given that the defendant did not show up or answer in court, the court determined that Milma's evidence was reliable and uncontested. The Court was able to determine that the infringement was both deliberate and detrimental to the plaintiff's reputation because there was no defence, which further supported Milma's accusations.

To know more you can follow the link below:

Lack of Defence Strengthened Plaintiff’s Position

The defendant, Jose George, had no defence at all, which was a significant element that greatly affected the case's verdict. The defendant did not show up or provide any written response refuting the allegations made by the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation (Milma) in spite of being formally summoned by the Principal Thiruvananthapuram Commercial Court. His silence strongly strengthened Milma's legal position because it amounted to an implicit admission of misconduct. Due to this non-participation, the court only used the plaintiff's provided materials and proceeded ex parte. Milma had provided an extensive collection of oral and documentary evidence that proved its long-standing trademark registration, broad public familiarity, and the remarkable resemblances between its brand and "Milnna." The court was able to regard this testimony as uncontested and convincing because there was no counter.

The court explicitly observed: “The non-appearance of the defendant shows that he is not opposing the claim... I could not find any reason to discard the evidence led by the plaintiff.” This statement emphasises how, particularly in trademark and business disputes, a defendant's lack of participation in the legal system may be construed as consent. The court found no reason to doubt the veracity of Milma's assertions or the reliability of the evidence offered in the absence of any objection or counterargument. In the end, the court decided strongly in favour of Milma since the defendant's delay not only undermined his position but also increased the persuasiveness of the plaintiff's arguments. For companies and individuals dealing with intellectual property litigation, this serves as a warning: being silent in court can have serious legal and financial repercussions.

Judgment, Penalties, and Broader Implications for Brand Owners

The Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation (Milma) won a resounding decision from the Principal Thiruvananthapuram Commercial Court, which awarded ₹1 crore in damages for trademark infringement and loss to company goodwill. A permanent prohibitory injunction prohibiting the defendant, Jose George, and his agents from marketing, selling, or advertising any milk or related products under the infringing mark "Milnna" or using packaging that closely resembles Milma's distinctive trade dress was also issued by the court in addition to the monetary compensation. To further emphasise the gravity of the offence, the court further mandated that the defendant pay the whole expense of the action. The judgment's acknowledgement of "Milma" as a creatively created term with inherent distinctiveness—derived from the words "milk" and "marketing"—was a noteworthy feature. As such, it is entitled to robust legal protection under trademark law. Businesses and brand owners will be significantly impacted by this decision. It emphasises how vital originality is and how strong the legal protections are for registered trademarks and related visual identities. The case shows that even minor name or packaging changes can have serious financial and legal repercussions if they are thought to be misleadingly identical.

The ruling supports the decades-long investment made by established brands like Milma, especially those in the cooperative sector, to develop consumer trust and brand equity. It sends a clear message that such hard-earned reputations are not for misappropriation and will be defended rigorously under the law.

Conclusion

The Milma vs. Milnna judgment stands as a landmark precedent in the enforcement of Indian trademark law, reinforcing the judiciary’s uncompromising stance on brand identity protection. By awarding ₹1 crore in damages and issuing a permanent injunction, the Principal Thiruvananthapuram Commercial Court has made it clear that blatant imitation and unjust enrichment at the expense of established brands will not be tolerated. This ruling not only safeguards the integrity of long-standing trademarks like Milma but also serves as a powerful deterrent to potential infringers—emphatically underscoring that trademark theft carries serious financial and legal consequences.