Introduction
A trademark dispute does not necessarily end with an undertaking to discontinue the use of a disputed mark. Compliance must also be reflected in a business’s subsequent conduct, including its packaging, promotional material, product listings, and online sales channels. The Delhi High Court’s order dated October 16, 2026, in Anandam Sweets Private Limited v. Bikanervala Foods Private Limited highlights the importance of ensuring that disputed branding is removed from digital platforms when a party has undertaken to stop using it.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, dealing with an application alleging wilful disobedience of an earlier court order, directed Bikanervala Foods Private Limited to remove all products bearing the allegedly infringing mark “ANANDAM” from its official website within 24 hours. The direction followed submissions that the product continued to appear on the company’s website despite an undertaking given in October 2025 to discontinue the use of the mark on gift hampers.
The order is significant for businesses managing trademark disputes because it demonstrates how continued online product listings can become relevant when a party’s compliance with a court undertaking is questioned.
Background of the Trademark Dispute
The proceedings arose from a commercial suit filed by Anandam Sweets Private Limited against Bikanervala Foods Private Limited before the Delhi High Court. The dispute concerns the use of the mark “ANANDAM” in connection with gift hampers.
The immediate application before the Court was I.A. 29204/2026, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 2A and 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had wilfully disobeyed the order dated October 17, 2025.
The central issue at this stage was not simply whether the disputed mark was being used, but whether the defendant had complied with the undertaking it had previously given to the Court.
The Undertaking Given by Bikanervala
According to the order, the defendant had furnished an affidavit dated October 17, 2025, containing specific commitments regarding the use of “ANANDAM” on its gift-hamper packaging.
The undertaking stated that Bikanervala would discontinue procuring gift-hamper packaging bearing the name “ANANDAM” with effect from October 17, 2025. The defendant also disclosed that it held approximately 5,800 boxes bearing the mark and undertook to exhaust the existing stock by November 15, 2025.
The undertaking further provided that any packaging remaining after the specified deadline would be destroyed. The defendant also undertook not to sell gift hampers under the word “ANANDAM” after exhausting the existing stock and not to sell the remaining stock to any person or entity in Uttarakhand.
These commitments formed the basis of the plaintiff’s subsequent complaint. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant continued to use the disputed mark even after the period specified in its undertaking had expired.
The distinction is important: a commitment to discontinue future procurement and exhaust existing stock within a defined period must be assessed against the actual conduct of the business after those deadlines.
Evidence of Continued Use of the Disputed Trademark
The plaintiff brought several materials to the Court’s attention to support its allegation that the use of “ANANDAM” had continued.
1. WhatsApp communications
The plaintiff referred to screenshots of WhatsApp conversations between its representative and a dealer of the defendant. These communications were relied upon to support the allegation that packaging bearing the disputed mark was still being used.
2. Diwali gift-hamper brochure
The plaintiff also relied on a Diwali hamper brochure circulated by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the brochure showed that the defendant continued to promote gift hampers using the “ANANDAM” mark.
This was relevant because promotional materials may continue to display disputed branding even when a business claims to have discontinued procurement of the corresponding packaging.
3. Product listing on the official website
A further point concerned the defendant’s official website, where an “ANANDAM” gift pack continued to appear on a product-detail page.
During the hearing, the plaintiff’s senior counsel accessed the website using his own device and showed the listing to the Court. The defendant’s counsel did not dispute that the product remained listed but clarified that it was displayed as “out of stock.”
The Court therefore had to consider whether the continued listing itself required corrective action, even though the defendant maintained that the product was not currently available for purchase.
Why the ‘Out of Stock’ Explanation Did Not Resolve the Immediate Issue
One of the notable aspects of the order is the distinction between a product’s availability for purchase and its continued presentation as a product on a company’s official website.
The defendant’s position was that the disputed gift pack was listed but marked as out of stock. The Court noted that the defendant was not disputing the continued presence of the product listing.
In response, the Court directed the defendant to remove all products bearing the allegedly infringing “ANANDAM” mark from its website within 24 hours.
The direction underscores a practical point for businesses involved in trademark disputes: marking a product as unavailable may not be sufficient where the Court has been asked to examine whether the disputed branding continues to be displayed contrary to an undertaking.
A product page can continue to communicate a brand association to consumers even when no stock is available. In a dispute concerning compliance with a court undertaking, the continued online display of a disputed mark can therefore become an important consideration.
However, the order should be read precisely. The Court issued a direction to remove the listings; it did not, in this order, finally determine the contempt allegation or conclusively resolve every issue concerning trademark infringement in the main suit.
Legal Significance of the Court’s Direction
1. Court undertakings require meaningful compliance
An undertaking furnished to a court is a formal commitment, not merely an informal statement of commercial intent. Where a party has undertaken to discontinue the use of a mark, its subsequent conduct may be examined against the exact terms and timeline of that commitment.
In this case, the undertaking addressed procurement of packaging, the treatment of existing stock, destruction of any remaining packaging, and future sales under the disputed name. The plaintiff’s application alleged that subsequent conduct was inconsistent with those commitments.
The Court’s direction to remove the product listings illustrates the importance of addressing all relevant channels through which the disputed branding remains visible.
2. Digital platforms are part of trademark compliance
Trademark enforcement increasingly involves online storefronts and digital promotional materials in addition to physical products and packaging.
A business may discontinue printing new packaging but still retain older product pages, brochures, catalogue entries, or other promotional material featuring the disputed mark. Such materials can create continuing compliance concerns.
Businesses responding to a trademark dispute should therefore review their official websites, e-commerce listings, digital catalogues, promotional brochures, and other customer-facing content to ensure that their actions align with any court order or undertaking.
3. Stock management and online presentation are separate issues
The undertaking in this matter expressly addressed existing inventory. The later application also raised concerns about the continued display of the product on the website.
This highlights the need to manage physical inventory and online representation separately. Even where existing stock is unavailable, digital listings may require independent review and removal in accordance with the applicable court directions.
4. Evidence of continued use can take different forms
The plaintiff relied on WhatsApp communications, a promotional brochure, and the defendant’s official website. Together, these materials were presented to support the allegation of continued use.
For businesses and trademark owners, the matter illustrates the practical importance of preserving dated screenshots, correspondence, promotional materials, and other relevant records when documenting alleged non-compliance. Whether such evidence ultimately establishes a breach depends on the facts, the applicable undertaking, and the Court’s assessment.
What the Order Means for Businesses and Trademark Owners
The order offers practical lessons for both parties involved in trademark disputes.
For businesses that have given undertakings: Compliance should be assessed across all relevant business operations. This may include discontinuing new packaging orders, managing existing stock within the agreed timeline, removing disputed branding from digital listings, and ensuring that marketing teams, dealers, and other relevant personnel understand the restrictions.
For trademark owners: Monitoring should not be limited to physical products. Official websites, online marketplaces, brochures, and dealer communications may provide relevant evidence when a party is alleged to have continued using a disputed mark.
For legal and compliance teams: Court undertakings should be translated into clear internal action plans, with responsibilities and deadlines assigned to the teams responsible for packaging, inventory, marketing, and online sales. Documenting the completion of each action can help demonstrate compliance if questions arise later.
These measures do not replace legal advice or the need to comply with the precise terms of a court order. They can, however, help reduce the risk of inconsistent branding and subsequent litigation.
What Happens Next?
The Delhi High Court issued notice on the plaintiff’s application, and the defendant’s counsel accepted notice on its behalf. The Court directed the defendant to file its reply within one week, with a rejoinder to be filed before the next hearing.
The authorized representative who had given the undertaking dated October 17, 2025, was also directed to remain physically present on the next date of hearing. The matter was listed for October 30, 2026.
These directions indicate that the proceedings concerning the alleged breach were continuing. The order dated October 16, 2026, should therefore be understood as an order addressing the immediate online listing issue while the application remained pending—not as a final adjudication of the contempt allegation.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s order in Anandam Sweets Private Limited v. Bikanervala Foods Private Limited highlights the importance of ensuring that a court undertaking to discontinue disputed branding is reflected in a business’s actual practices and online presence.
By directing Bikanervala to remove products bearing the “ANANDAM” mark from its website within 24 hours, the Court addressed the continued presence of the disputed product listing despite the defendant’s explanation that it was out of stock.
For businesses, the key takeaway is that trademark compliance should extend beyond new packaging and physical inventory to online listings and promotional materials. For trademark owners, the order demonstrates the practical role that digital records and product listings can play in bringing alleged non-compliance to the Court’s attention.
The subsequent proceedings will determine the issues raised in the pending application. Until then, the order serves as a timely reminder that compliance with court undertakings requires careful attention to both commercial operations and digital brand representation.