The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Varun Beverages Ltd. from using the “SMOOTH” trademark for a proposed dairy-based yoghurt drink after finding the mark prima facie deceptively similar to Parle Agro’s registered “SMOODH” trademark. Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ad-interim injunction on August 18, 2026, saying the substitution of the letter “D” in “SMOODH” with “T” to create “SMOOTH” amounted to what the court described as “smart copying.”
The dispute centers on a product Varun Beverages planned to launch in India in partnership with Japan’s Asahi Group. The proposed ready-to-drink dairy-based yoghurt product was to be sold under Asahi’s CALPIS brand while carrying the “SMOOTH” mark. Parle Agro approached the court after learning of the proposed launch, arguing that the name could create confusion with its established SMOODH dairy beverage business. The court found that Parle Agro had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and that the balance of convenience favored an interim restraint.
Why The Delhi High Court Restrained ‘SMOOTH’
At the heart of the dispute is the visual and phonetic similarity between the two marks.
Parle Agro adopted the “SMOODH” trademark in 2020 and launched dairy-based flavored drinks under the brand in 2021. According to the company’s submissions before the court, it owns multiple registrations covering SMOODH and formative marks in Classes 29, 32 and 35.
The company argued that Varun Beverages’ proposed “SMOOTH” mark was too close to its established brand. The court agreed that there was a strong prima facie similarity, particularly because the competing mark retained most of the distinctive lettering of SMOODH.
SMOODH vs. SMOOTH
| Factor | Parle Agro | Varun Beverages |
|---|---|---|
| Mark | SMOODH | SMOOTH |
| Product category | Dairy-based flavored drinks | Proposed dairy-based yoghurt drink |
| Key difference | — | “D” replaced by “T” |
| Brand launch | 2021 | Proposed launch |
| Court’s initial view | Established mark | Prima facie deceptively similar |
| Current status | Existing brand | Use temporarily restrained |
The court specifically observed that replacing the “D” with a “T” was insufficient to distinguish the two marks and characterized the move as “smart copying.”
Parle Agro’s SMOODH Brand Has Built Significant Commercial Value
Parle Agro’s argument was strengthened by the commercial scale it has built around SMOODH.
The company told the court that its sales turnover under the SMOODH mark exceeded ₹1,648 crore between FY2021-22 and FY2025-26. It also said it had spent more than ₹201 crore on promotional activities during the same period.
These figures were important because trademark protection is not based only on whether two words look alike. The reputation and goodwill associated with an established mark can also influence whether another mark is likely to cause confusion or dilute that goodwill.
SMOODH’s Reported Commercial Scale
| Metric | Reported Figure |
|---|---|
| Brand adoption | 2020 |
| Product launch | 2021 |
| Reported sales turnover, FY22-FY26 | ₹1,648+ crore |
| Reported promotional expenditure, FY22-FY26 | ₹201+ crore |
| Trademark classes cited | 29, 32 and 35 |
| Nature of products | Dairy-based flavored drinks |
The reported numbers indicate that SMOODH is not a recently introduced mark with limited market exposure. Parle Agro used its sales, advertising and media presence to establish that the brand had developed substantial goodwill.
The Proposed Varun Beverages Product
The dispute arose after Parle Agro learned that Varun Beverages was planning to introduce a ready-to-drink dairy-based yoghurt product in India in partnership with Asahi Group.
The product was associated with the CALPIS brand, but the proposed packaging gave prominence to the “SMOOTH” mark.
Parle Agro argued that this presentation could make consumers believe there was an association or commercial relationship between the two products.
The court found the packaging relevant to the dispute. It noted that the proposed packaging placed the CALPIS brand name in a smaller font than “SMOOTH,” giving greater prominence to the disputed mark. According to the court, this strengthened the prima facie case that the presentation could mislead consumers about a possible commercial connection.
Why Packaging Mattered
Proposed Product
CALPIS
↓
SMOOTH
↓
Dairy-Based Yoghurt Drink
Court's Concern:
Greater prominence of “SMOOTH”
could increase the possibility of
consumer association with “SMOODH”
The court therefore considered not just the names in isolation but also how the proposed mark would appear on the product.
Parle Agro Approached The Court Before The Product Launch
An important aspect of the case is that the disputed product had apparently not yet entered the Indian market when Parle Agro sought judicial intervention.
According to the court record summarized in the judgment reporting, Parle Agro came across an article on July 24, 2026, about Varun Beverages and Asahi Group’s planned product launch.
The company subsequently approached the Delhi High Court, seeking an injunction to prevent the proposed use of the SMOOTH mark.
This meant the court was assessing the potential for infringement and consumer confusion before the product had established a substantial market presence in India.
Court Finds Prima Facie Trademark Infringement
The court’s order is an ad-interim injunction, meaning it is an interim measure rather than a final determination after the complete trial of the dispute.
Justice Jyoti Singh held that Parle Agro had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff.
The court also referred to potential dilution and infringement under Sections 29(1) and 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
What The Interim Order Does
| Restriction | Effect |
|---|---|
| Use of “SMOOTH” | Restrained |
| Deceptively similar marks | Restrained |
| Packaging using disputed mark | Restricted |
| Covered parties | Varun Beverages, officers, distributors and agents |
| Nature of order | Ad-interim injunction |
| Final trademark dispute | Still pending |
The order therefore prevents Varun Beverages and associated parties from proceeding with the disputed branding while the litigation continues.
The Case Highlights The Importance Of Brand Similarity
The dispute illustrates why companies launching new consumer brands need to consider more than literal differences between names.
“SMOODH” and “SMOOTH” are not identical words. However, the court’s preliminary assessment focused on the overall similarity, including the sequence of letters, pronunciation and the circumstances surrounding the proposed use.
The court’s reference to “smart copying” is particularly significant because it indicates that simply making a minor alteration to an established brand may not be enough to avoid a trademark dispute.
For companies in highly competitive FMCG and beverage markets, this can have substantial commercial implications.
Dairy Beverage Market Adds To The Competitive Context
The dispute comes at a time when India’s beverage companies are expanding beyond traditional carbonated soft drinks into dairy beverages, functional drinks and other ready-to-consume categories.
The proposed Varun Beverages product would have brought another major player into the ready-to-drink dairy segment through its partnership with Asahi.
Parle Agro’s SMOODH is already positioned in the flavored dairy beverage category. The overlap in product type increases the importance of avoiding consumer confusion because the two products could potentially compete for similar retail shelf space and consumer occasions.
Competitive Considerations
| Factor | SMOODH | Proposed SMOOTH |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Dairy beverage | Dairy-based yoghurt drink |
| Distribution potential | Established | Planned |
| Brand recognition | Established SMOODH identity | New proposed mark |
| Market status | Existing | Launch restrained |
| Brand owner | Parle Agro | Varun Beverages |
| Strategic partner | — | Asahi Group |
The case therefore has implications beyond a simple naming dispute because branding is particularly important in fast-moving consumer goods, where consumers often make purchasing decisions quickly based on visual recognition.
What Happens To The Varun Beverages Launch?
The interim injunction means Varun Beverages cannot proceed with the disputed “SMOOTH” branding while the restraint remains in place.
The company could potentially explore alternative branding, challenge the interim order, or continue defending its position in the ongoing proceedings. The available court reporting does not establish what final branding strategy Varun Beverages will adopt.
The litigation therefore could result in either a prolonged trademark dispute or a commercial decision to modify the product’s branding before launch.
For a new beverage product, changing a brand name before launch can be costly because packaging, advertising, distribution materials and marketing plans may already have been prepared.
The Financial Stakes Go Beyond The Trademark
For Parle Agro, protecting SMOODH is important because the company says the mark generated more than ₹1,648 crore in sales over five financial years and received more than ₹201 crore in promotional spending.
That investment creates an incentive to protect the brand from marks that could potentially weaken its distinctiveness.
For Varun Beverages, the dispute could affect the launch timeline for a product backed by an international beverage partnership. Any change to packaging or brand identity could require additional design, manufacturing and marketing work.
This makes trademark clearance an important part of product development, particularly when companies enter categories where established brands already have significant consumer recognition.
The Bigger Picture
The SMOOTH-SMOODH dispute demonstrates how trademark conflicts can arise even before a product reaches consumers. The Delhi High Court’s preliminary finding focused on the similarity between the marks, the overlapping product category, the proposed packaging and the commercial reputation that Parle Agro says it has built around SMOODH.
The case also sends a broader message to consumer companies: small spelling changes may not be sufficient to create a legally distinct brand when the overall impression remains close to an established mark. As India’s packaged beverage market becomes more competitive, companies are likely to place greater emphasis on trademark searches and brand clearance before investing heavily in packaging and national launches.
Looking Ahead
The dispute remains ongoing, and the August 18 order is an interim restraint rather than a final judgment on all issues. The matter is scheduled before the Joint Registrar on September 24, 2026, and before the court on December 17, 2026. Until then, Varun Beverages and its associated parties remain restrained from using “SMOOTH” or a deceptively similar mark in the manner covered by the order.
The case will be closely watched by India’s FMCG and beverage industry because its eventual outcome could reinforce how courts assess minor variations in competing brand names. For Varun Beverages, the immediate challenge is finding a path forward for its proposed dairy-based yoghurt product, while Parle Agro’s focus will remain on protecting the goodwill and commercial identity it has built around SMOODH.
Get the day’s top stories in your inbox
One concise email. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
