Delhi High Court Restrains Firozabad Firm From Manufacturing Look-Alike Nutella Jars, Imposes ₹10 Lakh Costs
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained Firozabad-based glass manufacturers from making and selling empty glass jars found to be deceptively similar to the registered Nutella jar shape used by Ferrero Spa, the maker of Nutella spreads. The court also directed the manufacturers to hand over 3.05 lakh seized jars to Ferrero and pay Rs 10 lakh towards legal costs. A single bench of...
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained Firozabad-based glass manufacturers from making and selling empty glass jars found to be deceptively similar to the registered Nutella jar shape used by Ferrero Spa, the maker of Nutella spreads.
The court also directed the manufacturers to hand over 3.05 lakh seized jars to Ferrero and pay Rs 10 lakh towards legal costs.
A single bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in a judgment dated November 19, 2025, held that the manufacrures had knowledge of Ferrero's proprietary rights and rejected their claim of innocent infringement. The court recorded that the manufacturers had admitted supplying the jars and did not object to the injunction, though they contested the claim for damages.
Ferrero told the Court that in 2022 it discovered the defendant-manufacturer offering empty jars promoted as “Nutella glass jars” on their website and on IndiaMart. It claimed that the jars were near-identical copies of its registered Nutella jar shape mark and were often used by third parties to package counterfeit Nutella products. The company added that embossing found on the seized jars matched embossing earlier seen on counterfeit products in other cases.
Acting on orders of the Court, Local Commissioners seized 3.05 lakh jars from three locations in Firozabad, including 350 ml and 650 ml jars, brochures titled “Nutella jar/choco jars” and cartons bearing the Nutella mark.
The manufacturers argued that they only made generic jars against orders for a UAE client, that the term “Nutella jars” was commonly used in the industry to describe the shape, and that they had no involvement in selling finished counterfeit products. They also said they had no objection to a permanent injunction being passed.
Rejecting the defence, the Court held that emails and drawings referring to “Nutella cocoa jar” showed they had actual and constructive knowledge of Ferrero's rights.
“The Plaintiff has pleaded that its Nutella products have been available in the Indian market since 2009 and keeping in view the considerable market presence of the Plaintiffs' products in India, the submission of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that they were unaware about the Plaintiffs' proprietary rights in the shape mark for the jar fails to persuade this Court”, the Court said.
While noting that there was no evidence linking the defendants to the sale of counterfeit Nutella, the Court declined to grant Ferrero's claim of over Rs 53 crore in damages. It observed that although this was the defendants' first instance of infringement, it was not innocent but a case of first-time “knowing” infringement. It found that the defendants had voluntarily consented to a permanent injunction without forcing a full trial and therefore limited relief to legal costs and seizure.
Relying on the principles in Koninlijke Philips and Ors. v. Amazestore and Ors.,the Court awarded Rs 10 lakh as costs, citing court fees, commissioner fees and litigation expenditure.
The court also ordered that the seized jars be handed over to Ferrero, which may use them for its own products or fill them and donate them as part of CSR activities. It noted that Ferrero had valued the stock at Rs 62.84 lakh and that handing over the entire stock would itself cause financial loss to the defendants, serving as a deterrent. All other packaging material seized during the raids is to be destroyed.
Case Title: Ferrero Spa & Ors. v. Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1572
Case Number: CS(COMM) 65/2023
For Plaintiff: Advocates Pravin Anand, Vaishali Mittal and Shivang Sharma
For Defendants: Advocate Samrat Nigam, Akshay Srivastava, Krati Tiwari, Arpita Rawat and Pradeep Routela, Ishan Sanghi