Calcutta High Court permanently restrains use of ‘KIT KAT’ as Nestle wins trademark case

Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay heard a matter over KIT-KAT trademark protection.

From KIT KAT to Keka Chanachur

The case arises from an execution petition filed to enforce a July 31, 2023 decree permanently restraining KIT KAT Food Products and ors from manufacturing, selling, advertising or dealing in goods bearing the trademark “KIT KAT” or any deceptively similar mark. The decree attained finality after never being challenged before a higher court.

Nestle alleged that despite the injunction, the KIT KAT Food Products continued manufacturing, marketing and selling chanchur under the ‘KIT KAT’ mark through various online platforms. Nestle relied on online purchases, screenshots, e-commerce listings and copies of cease and desist notices to demonstrate infringement.

In August 2025, the court appointed joint special officers to inspect the KIT KAT Food Products premises and report whether the injunction was being violated. After the inspection, the officers informed the court that the original KIT-KAT Food Products premises were closed, and the business was operating nearby as Keka Food Products, and the chanachur was being sold as Keka Chanachur now.

One of the judgment debtors admitted that he had earlier operated KIT-KAT Food Products, now runs Keka Food Products, and that both products use substantially the same packaging and design. The officers collected packaging samples, prepared an inventory and submitted their report to the court. 

The judgment debtor stated that no further stock or raw material carrying the mark remained, and after dissolution of the earlier business, they had abandoned all rights over the “KIT KAT” trademark. They also gave an undertaking to the court that any violation of these statements would warrant contempt.

‘Permanently restrained from using KIT-KAT trademark’

The court, considering their affidavits and joint officers’ report, accepted their undertaking and permanently restrained the judgment debtors, their partners, representatives, and anyone acting through them from manufacturing, selling, advertising or distributing goods using the “KIT KAT” trademark or any deceptively similar trademark through physical or online stores.

The court held that any kind of breach will entitle Nestle to seek execution afresh together with every other remedy available in law, including proceedings for contempt, without being required to establish any further equity in their favour. The court observed that judgment debtors were legally bound by the undertaking, and found no need to take further coercive action at this stage.