NEW DELHI: Just as the internet was busy savouring Prime Minister Narendra Modi‘s now-viral “Melodi” moment with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, the original makers of the beloved Indian toffee were fighting a far less sweet battle in a Delhi courtroom.While Prime Minister Modi leaned into meme culture by gifting Meloni a packet of Melody during an official interaction, back home the confectionery giant behind the iconic candy was seeking urgent legal protection for the very brand name that had unexpectedly become a diplomatic punchline.District Judge Dipali Sharma recently granted an ex parte injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from using the mark “MYDADY”, which was alleged to be deceptively similar to the registered trademark “MELODY”.According to the plaint, proprietors Parle Products Ltd and Parle Biscuits Ltd, heirs to the “House of Parle” founded by Mohanlal Dayal Chauhan in 1929, alleged that defendant M/s Bapuji Foods Products adopted the mark “MYDADY” with a trade dress resembling “MELODY”. The plea states the plaintiffs adopted “MELODI” and “MELODY” in 1973, 1983 and 1988, respectively, while the defendants claimed use only from July 2019.Observing that the similarities between the competing products were apparent on a bare reading of the material placed before it, Judge Sharma held, “The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, and in the event of denial of relief, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.”Based on its findings, the court issued summons to the defendants through all modes for Aug 6, directing them to file written statements, supporting affidavits and documents within 30 days of receipt.The court also appointed a local commissioner, who is an advocate directed to “seize and take charge of all the impugned goods, the records, account books or material” pertaining to the impugned trademark/label/trade dress/ colour combination and make an inventory of the same.The commissioner was also empowered to seek police assistance and “break open the lock, if any, of the defendant at aforesaid address in the presence of the police and two independent witnesses.”
