Analysis: This case highlights the challenges of protecting well-known trademarks in the digital age. The court’s interim order seems to favor “Amul”, recognizing its status as a well-known mark (as per IPAB’s 2015 decision). However, several points warrant consideration:

1. Jurisdiction: The court assumed jurisdiction based on website accessibility, which aligns with the “effects test and sliding scale” established in Banyan Tree Holding v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy (2009). This approach, while protecting Indian trademark owners, may have far-reaching implications for international businesses.
2. Similarity Assessment: Given the visual and phonetic similarities, the court’s view that ‘Amuleti’ is deceptively similar to ‘Amul’ seems reasonable. As observed Defendant No. 1 has adopted a similar font as that of the plaintiffs’ mark for its impugned marks. Defendant is trying to ride on the reputation of Plaintiff’s well-known mark as closely as possible.
3. Suffix: Adding ‘eti’ to ‘Amul’ does not distinguish the mark in the present case as Delhi High Court in the case PhonePe Pvt. Ltd. v. EZY Services (2019), When assessing trademark similarity, the mark should be considered as a whole. The average consumer doesn’t dissect a trademark but perceives it in its entirety. The evaluation should focus on the overall structural and phonetic resemblance between marks, considering the nature of the goods and the consumer’s familiarity with them. The key question is whether the defendant’s trademark in its complete form is likely to confuse or mislead consumers who are familiar with the plaintiff’s existing trademark.
4. Online Presence: The order’s scope covering social media and e-commerce platforms reflects the evolving nature of trademark protection in the digital realm.