INTRODUCTION

Parle Agro Pvt Ltd has recently taken legal action against PepsiCo India, filing a trademark infringement suit in the Delhi High Court over the use of the term “Fizz” on PepsiCo’s 7UP drink packaging. This dispute highlights the intense competition in India’s beverage market and illustrates complex intellectual property challenges faced by major companies.

2.     BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The core of the dispute revolves around PepsiCo's use of the word "Fizz" in its 7UP drink packaging.

​Parle Agro's Claim

​Long-standing use: Parle Agro claims to have been using "Fizz" as a prominent and essential part of its brand identity since the launch of "Appy Fizz" in 2005. 

​Established goodwill: The company argues that it has built significant goodwill and reputation around the "Fizz" mark, which has been extended to other products like "Frooti Fizz," "Grappo Fizz," and "B-Fizz." 

​Allegation of passing off and infringement: Parle Agro contends that PepsiCo's recent packaging for 7UP is an attempt to copy its brand and capitalize on its goodwill. The company alleges that PepsiCo has reduced the size of its "7UP" logo while elevating "Fizz" to a primary position, using a style and presentation "identical" to Parle Agro's. 

​Previous descriptive use vs. current prominent use: Parle Agro points out that PepsiCo previously used "Extra Fizz" in a descriptive manner, but has now changed its branding to make "Fizz" a prominent, non-descriptive part of the name.

PepsiCo's Defense

​"Fizz" is a generic term: PepsiCo's primary defense is that "Fizz" is a generic and descriptive term for any aerated or carbonated drink and therefore, cannot be monopolized by any single company. 

​No monopoly: PepsiCo's counsel has argued that Parle Agro cannot claim a monopoly over a word that is universally used to describe the characteristic of carbonated beverages.

3.     LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED

Legal Action: A permanent injunction suit seeking to restrain PepsiCo from using the word "Fizz" on its 7Up cold drink packaging. The suit is based on claims of trademark infringement and passing off.

4.     KEY ASPECTS OF THE BATTLE

​Trademark rights: The case will test the extent to which a common descriptive word can be protected as a trademark, especially when a company has used it as a prominent part of its brand for a significant period. Parle Agro is relying on both its registered trademark and common law rights. 

​Consumer confusion: A central argument is whether PepsiCo's use of "Fizz" is likely to confuse consumers, leading them to believe that 7UP "Fizz" is a product from the Parle Agro family. 

​Previous legal dispute: It is noteworthy that this is not the first legal clash between the two companies. In a previous case, PepsiCo had sought to restrain Parle Agro from using the tagline "For The Bold" on its "B Fizz" products, a request that was partially denied by the Delhi High Court. That case revolved around a different set of facts, but it highlights the ongoing rivalry between the two beverage giants. 

5.     SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE 

The case is anticipated to be a landmark for trademark protection in India's fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector, especially concerning generic versus distinctive use of common terms in branding.

A decision will clarify the extent to which generic or descriptive terms like “Fizz” can be protected under trademark law.

It impacts branding strategies of major beverage players in India and sets precedent for future disputes over product trade dress and brand elements.

In brief: Parle Agro accuses PepsiCo of unlawfully exploiting the “Fizz” trademark through the 7Up brand packaging, leading to consumer confusion and dilution of Parle’s Appy Fizz goodwill. PepsiCo counters that “Fizz” is generic and that cannot be monopolised claims. The case is pending a critical hearing in the Delhi High Court, balancing trademark distinctiveness against generic usage claims in a competitive market.

To know more about this you can follow the link below:

6.     COURT OBSERVATION

Court's Observations & Findings:

• Neither party was fully correct; both products and uses differ but the tagline is registered and used by PepsiCo.
• The court accepted the existence of PepsiCo’s trademark registration but acknowledged Parle’s tagline use on packaging.
• Consumer confusion is unlikely as packaging prominently displays manufacturer brand names.
• Refused interlocutory injunction to completely restrain Parle from tagline use on packaging.
• Ordered a partial injunction:

• Parle must refrain from using “For The Bold” as a prominent element in advertising campaigns.

• Parle is allowed to continue using the tagline on product labels.

• Trademark validity challenged by Parle; court allowed Parle to file rectification proceedings. This aspect remains under adjudication.

7.     CURRENT STATUS

​The case was heard by Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court and is currently pending a final hearing. The court will consider the arguments of both sides to determine if PepsiCo's use of "Fizz" on its 7UP product constitutes trademark infringement and passing off.

Further Proceedings:

​The Delhi High Court to hear the case further. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the beverage industry in India, particularly regarding the use of common or descriptive words in branding and the protection of trademark rights.

​It's also worth noting that this is not the first trademark dispute between the two companies. In a separate case, PepsiCo had previously sued Parle Agro over the use of the tagline "For The Bold" on its "B-Fizz" product. In that instance, the Delhi High Court refused to grant a complete injunction against Parle Agro's use of the tagline on the product label itself.

8.     Broader Implications

This dispute echoes wider challenges in trademark law regarding generic terms versus distinctive branding, especially in industries like beverages where descriptive words are frequently used. It also highlights how packaging design and branding strategy can become focal points in intellectual property battles.

Parle Agro’s aggressive stance to protect its “Fizz” identity underscores the value companies attribute to branding in competitive consumer markets. Simultaneously, PepsiCo's defense raises continued debate about the limits of trademark protection over common vernacular terms.

9.     CONCLUSION

The court did not issue a final ruling barring either party from using the disputed terms but instead recognized the complexity of trademark validity and consumer perception. The matter remains under judicial consideration, with further hearings scheduled. The case highlights the tension between generic descriptors and brand identity, and the importance of distinctiveness in trademark law.