Candour Legal – Best Lawyers in Ahmedabad | Law firm in Ahmedabad
On 7 April 2026, the Delhi High Court imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on Parle Agro Private Limited for failing to comply with its September 2023 direction to periodically disclose the sales revenue of its ‘B Fizz’ beverage during the pendency of a trademark suit filed by PepsiCo Inc. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, hearing an application by PepsiCo in PepsiCo Inc. & Anr. v. Parle Agro Private Limited, CS(COMM) 268/2021, found that the non-filing of bi-monthly sales certificates over a period of more than two and a half years constituted a “clear, unambiguous and serious” violation of the court’s interim order. The Delhi HC Parle Agro PepsiCo ruling is notable less for its quantum than for what it signals: that compliance with interim directions in commercial IP suits is a court-calibrated obligation, and failure will carry tangible costs even where the breach is not wilful.
Key Takeaways
- Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court imposed ₹10 lakh costs on Parle Agro in PepsiCo Inc. v. Parle Agro Private Limited, CS(COMM) 268/2021 on 7 April 2026.
- The costs are payable to the Bharat Ke Veer fund within three weeks; the deponent of Parle Agro’s affidavits must tender an unconditional apology within four weeks.
- The non-compliance concerned the court’s 18 September 2023 direction to file certified ‘B Fizz’ sales revenue figures every two months from commencement of use of the impugned label.
- The court expressly found the lapse was not wilful but nonetheless a clear and serious violation of its interim order — a finding calibrated below the threshold for civil contempt.
- Parle Agro’s argument that sales disclosures were relevant only at the trial stage was rejected: the court held that parties cannot decide for themselves which directions to obey.
- The underlying dispute concerns PepsiCo’s registered trademark “For The Bold” (used for the Doritos brand) and Parle Agro’s use of the tagline “Be the Fizz! For the Bold!” for its ‘B Fizz’ beverage launched in October 2020.
- The suit is listed for further hearing on 10 September 2026.
Case at a Glance: From B Fizz Launch to Trademark Suit
Parle Agro launched its aerated beverage ‘B Fizz’ on 15 October 2020, with the tagline “Be the Fizz! For the Bold!” featured on the product label and associated marketing. PepsiCo Inc., which owns the registered trademark “For The Bold” used for its Doritos corn chips brand in multiple jurisdictions, approached the Delhi High Court in 2021 seeking a permanent injunction under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, together with damages and costs.
Parle Agro had, on 19 September 2020, filed a “proposed to be used” trademark application for “Be the Fizz! For the Bold!”. That application, opposed by PepsiCo, remained pending at the time of the infringement suit. In the main proceedings, Parle Agro challenged the validity of PepsiCo’s registered trademark under Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arguing that “For The Bold” is a non-distinctive promotional phrase rather than a protectable source identifier.
The 18 September 2023 Interim Order: A Calibrated Balance
The interim framework that forms the backdrop to the current costs order was laid down on 18 September 2023 by Justice C. Hari Shankar. Rather than granting PepsiCo an outright interim injunction restraining all use of “For The Bold”, the court adopted a calibrated position. It permitted Parle Agro to continue using the tagline on the ‘B Fizz’ product label but imposed a set of conditions designed to limit the risk of ongoing infringement and to preserve the evidentiary record for the final hearing.
The conditions included: (i) a restraint on using “For The Bold” as the predominant element in advertising campaigns; (ii) a direction to take down specified Facebook advertisements; (iii) an undertaking that label changes to ‘B Fizz’ would be routed through prior court approval; and, critically, (iv) a requirement to file certified sales revenue figures for ‘B Fizz’ every two months from the date of commencement of use of the impugned label. The purpose of the bi-monthly disclosure was evidentiary: to create a running record of the quantum of sales so that, at the final hearing, the court would have a tested basis to assess damages if infringement were established.
The Compliance Lapse: Non-Filing of Bi-Monthly Sales Certificates
Over the two and a half years that followed, Parle Agro did not file the certified sales revenue figures. PepsiCo eventually filed an application before the High Court alleging breach of the interim order, pointing specifically to the continued non-compliance on sales disclosure and to two Facebook posts that had remained online despite the takedown direction. On the Facebook posts, Parle Agro successfully explained that the posts dated back to 2022 and had been left online inadvertently rather than through continued use of the tagline in fresh campaigns; the court accepted this and did not treat the omission as deliberate.
On the sales-certificate question, however, the court declined to accept Parle Agro’s explanation. Parle Agro contended that the disclosure of sales figures was relevant only at the trial stage, when the issue of damages would be live. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected that framing. A party subject to an interim order of the court, the bench observed, does not enjoy the liberty to decide for itself which of the court’s directions to follow and which to defer to a later stage of the proceedings. The direction was in force; Parle Agro was bound to comply; and the failure to do so was a breach.
Why This Is Costs, Not Contempt: The “Not Wilful” Finding
A subtle but important feature of the order is its deliberate placement below the contempt threshold. Civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 requires wilful disobedience to a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court. The High Court’s express finding — that the non-compliance was not wilful though nonetheless clear, unambiguous, and serious — places the conduct outside the contempt jurisdiction but well within the court’s inherent and statutory power to impose costs for non-compliance with its interim directions.
The distinction matters at three levels. First, there is no conviction for contempt and no imprisonment exposure, which is why the cost is monetary rather than custodial. Second, the costs are not compensation to PepsiCo — they are directed to the Bharat Ke Veer fund, signalling that the purpose is vindication of the court’s authority rather than private reparation. Third, the order leaves intact the substantive trademark-infringement proceedings on the merits; the 18 September 2023 interim framework continues to govern Parle Agro’s use of the tagline.
The direction that the deponent of Parle Agro’s affidavits tender an unconditional apology within four weeks carries a separate weight. It is targeted at the individual who verified the company’s non-compliance position in court affidavits, and reinforces that statements of record made on company affidavits are personal assurances to the court, not corporate public relations.
Interim Orders and Brand Protection: A Wider Pattern
The B Fizz order fits a pattern that has emerged in Indian commercial IP litigation over the past few years. Where plaintiffs establish a prima facie case but the balance of convenience does not support outright interim injunction, courts have increasingly adopted “calibrated” interim regimes: permitting continued use of the impugned mark or element subject to documented restrictions, specified takedowns, and evidentiary obligations such as periodic sales reporting. The design protects the plaintiff’s ability to prove damages if it succeeds at trial while not extinguishing the defendant’s business during the pendency of the suit.
For the design to work, compliance with the running obligations must be rigorous. The Delhi High Court’s decision to monetise breach through costs — and to do so in visible, record-keeping terms — signals that interim directions of this kind are self-standing obligations, not advisory guidelines whose compliance can be weighed against the defendant’s view of strategic relevance. Corporate parties to commercial IP suits will now have to build internal workflows to meet periodic reporting directions with the same discipline they apply to statutory filings.
Cross-Practice Impact
For intellectual property and commercial litigation practices, the order provides a clean appellate-ready formulation of the principle that parties cannot self-assess the relevance of court-ordered disclosures. Firms defending brand-infringement actions should audit pending matters for any periodic-reporting directions in interim orders and ensure that compliance is tracked against calendar, not deferred to the trial stage.
For FMCG, beverage, snack, and broader branded-consumer-goods practices, the ruling intersects with trademark-clearance workflows in two places. First, pre-launch clearance searches need to extend beyond identical marks to promotional taglines, slogans, and campaign phrases that are registered or in use internationally — particularly for trademarks registered by large players for flagship brands. Second, where a product has already launched and an infringement suit is pending with calibrated interim conditions, compliance becomes a board-level governance concern given the reputational and cost implications of adverse orders.
For advertising and media law counsel, the underlying infringement point — that Parle Agro was restrained from using “For The Bold” as the predominant element in campaigns but not from using it on the label — is itself an instructive line. The distinction between label use (protected by the pending trademark application and subject to interim accommodation) and prominent campaign use (restrained to limit infringement risk) will bear on how brand communications are scoped during contested trademark proceedings.
For in-house legal and compliance teams — including those at Ahmedabad and Gujarat-based FMCG, pharmaceutical, and consumer-goods companies with national brand portfolios — the immediate action point is a calendar audit of all pending suits in which interim orders impose periodic compliance obligations. A simple missed filing, as in B Fizz, can translate into a seven-figure costs order and a published finding of breach that will sit in the case record through trial.
Open Questions and What Happens Next
Three questions remain open. First, the main infringement suit is yet to be decided on merits; the next hearing is listed for 10 September 2026. The question of whether “For The Bold” is a distinctive protectable mark under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 or a non-distinctive promotional phrase will continue to be tested. The outcome will determine whether Parle Agro’s use of “Be the Fizz! For the Bold!” amounts to infringement under Section 29 or is permitted as bona fide use of an ordinary English phrase.
Second, Parle Agro’s next step on compliance will be closely watched. The company must now file all outstanding bi-monthly certificates and bring its compliance current, failing which the risk of an escalated contempt application would crystallise.
Third, the quantum of ₹10 lakh — and its destination to the Bharat Ke Veer fund rather than to PepsiCo — signals that Indian commercial courts are prepared to use costs as a deterrent against procedural non-compliance in IP litigation. Future orders in comparable matters are likely to draw on this formulation, particularly where large corporate defendants have systematically under-performed on running interim obligations.
Looking Ahead
The B Fizz order will not decide the “For The Bold” trademark question. It will, however, shape how parties to Indian commercial IP litigation approach the running obligations imposed by calibrated interim orders. For plaintiffs, the order provides a clear procedural template to convert non-compliance with sales-reporting directions into tangible consequences. For defendants, it reframes such directions from administrative boilerplate into live judicial obligations. For courts, it demonstrates a middle path between the extremes of granting injunction and refusing all interim relief — a path that depends on defendant compliance to deliver its intended evidentiary function. The final word on “For The Bold” remains for another day; the clarity on interim-order compliance is available now.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Delhi High Court rule in PepsiCo v. Parle Agro on 7 April 2026?
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on Parle Agro Private Limited in PepsiCo Inc. & Anr. v. Parle Agro Private Limited, CS(COMM) 268/2021, for failing to comply with the court’s 18 September 2023 direction to file certified sales revenue figures for ‘B Fizz’ every two months. The costs are payable to the Bharat Ke Veer fund within three weeks, and the deponent of Parle Agro’s affidavits has been directed to tender an unconditional apology within four weeks. The suit is listed for further hearing on 10 September 2026.
Is the ₹10 lakh cost on Parle Agro a contempt of court finding?
No. The Delhi High Court expressly held that the non-compliance was not wilful, which is the threshold requirement for civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The costs were imposed for clear, unambiguous, and serious violation of an interim order — conduct that falls below the contempt threshold but above no-consequence. The distinction means there is no contempt conviction or custodial exposure; the remedy is monetary and the proceedings on merits continue.
What is the dispute about “For The Bold” between PepsiCo and Parle Agro?
PepsiCo owns the registered trademark “For The Bold”, used prominently for its Doritos brand. Parle Agro launched its aerated beverage ‘B Fizz’ in October 2020 with the tagline “Be the Fizz! For the Bold!”. PepsiCo sued for trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. In a 18 September 2023 order, the court permitted Parle Agro to continue using the tagline on the ‘B Fizz’ label but subject to conditions, including a restraint on using it as the predominant element in advertising campaigns and a requirement to file periodic sales certificates. The merits of the infringement claim are still pending final determination.
What does Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 cover?
Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 sets out when use of a mark by a person other than the registered proprietor constitutes infringement. It covers identical or deceptively similar marks used on identical or similar goods or services in the course of trade, where such use is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public or to be taken as having an association with the registered mark. Section 29(4) extends protection to well-known marks used on dissimilar goods where the use takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trademark.
What is the Bharat Ke Veer fund?
Bharat Ke Veer is a fund administered by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to support the families of Central Armed Police Forces personnel killed in the line of duty. Courts in India routinely direct costs imposed for non-compliance or for conduct that falls short of contempt to this or similar public-interest funds, signalling that the cost is a vindication of judicial authority rather than compensation to the opposite party.
What is the significance of this order for Indian IP litigation practice?
The order confirms that interim directions imposing periodic compliance obligations — such as bi-monthly sales disclosure — are self-standing judicial orders whose breach will be monetised through costs. Parties to commercial IP suits, and their counsel, cannot defer such obligations to the trial stage on the basis of strategic assessment. The ruling strengthens the enforcement architecture around calibrated interim orders and is likely to be cited in future applications alleging breach of running compliance directions.
What happens next in PepsiCo v. Parle Agro?
The underlying trademark infringement suit is listed for further hearing on 10 September 2026. The principal merits questions remain open: whether “For The Bold” is a distinctive protectable trademark under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999; whether Parle Agro’s use of “Be the Fizz! For the Bold!” on ‘B Fizz’ infringes under Section 29; and, if infringement is established, the quantum of damages, for which the periodic sales figures (now to be filed) will be material.
About This Analysis
This analysis has been prepared by the Candour Legal Team. Candour Legal is an analytical commercial law practice based in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, with a focus on intellectual property, commercial litigation, direct tax, corporate and commercial law, and regulatory advisory. Views expressed are general in nature and for informational purposes only; they are not legal advice and should not be relied upon in any specific matter without advice on the facts.
