The Bombay High Court has intensified its scrutiny over the alleged trademark infringement by Kerala-based Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices, accused of misusing the iconic “Haji Ali” name owned by Mumbai’s renowned Haji Ali Juice Centre.
In a recent session, Justice Manish Pitale of the Bombay High Court noted prima facie evidence suggesting that the Kerala outlet had “wilfully disobeyed” the court’s earlier orders to cease usage of the trademarked name. The court has now directed its receiver to prepare a detailed report on the outlet’s compliance with these directives.
The dispute began when Asma Farid Noorani, owner of the 54-year-old Haji Ali Juice Centre in Mumbai, took legal action against several entities across India, including a Vijaywada-based outlet in 2022. These outlets were allegedly using the “Haji Ali” name without authorization, leading to consumer confusion and potential damage to the Mumbai centre’s brand reputation. In the case of the Vijaywada outlet, the court had previously issued a restraint against the use of the name and label, citing deceptive similarity.
The current legal action targets another franchisee, this time in Kerala, which continued to operate under the “Haji Ali” name even after the termination of its franchise agreement in 2023. Despite a court order in October 2023 barring them from using the trademarked name and from listing their services on platforms like Zomato and Swiggy, violations were observed as recently as September 2024.
Noorani’s petition highlighted ongoing infringements, including unauthorized listings on online delivery platforms and continued use of the “Haji Ali” branding in their physical and digital marketing materials. The court receiver’s findings corroborated these claims, noting that signage and promotional materials bearing the disputed name were seized and sealed during inspections.
The high court’s latest directive requires the Kerala outlet to disclose the identities and addresses of its owners within a week, addressing the ambiguity over proprietorship and ensuring accountability. Furthermore, the court expressed its dissatisfaction with the outlet’s evasion of legal proceedings and its disregard for the judicial process.
