IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—W.D. Wash.: Haldiram obtains preliminary injunction blocking unauthorized distribution of snack products meant for India, (Nov 14, 2025)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

The opinion distinguished between “genuine” gray-market products that do not infringe and materially different gray-market products that do infringe.

Indian-style snack food maker Haldiram India (P) Ltd (Haldiram) showed it was entitled to a preliminary injunction in a gray-market product trademark infringement lawsuit, held the federal district court in Seattle, Washington. After defendant Punjab Trading, Inc. (Punjab) failed to appear or respond, the court found Haldiram had a likelihood of success on the merits because (1) Haldiram facially showed valid trademark rights; and (2) Punjab sales of Haldiram products made for the India market were likely to confuse U.S. consumers. Haldiram also showed a likelihood of irreparable harm to goodwill that would defy quantification. The balance of equities also favored Haldiram. An injunction would not harm Punjab because Punjab apparently did not have any authorization to sell the Haldiram products in the first place. The public interest in preventing consumer confusion also favored Haldiram. The court limited the injunctive relief Haldiram proposed to the extent it was overbroad (Haldiram India (P) Ltd. v. Punjab Trading, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01462-LK (W.D. Wash. Nov. 12, 2025)).

Background. Indian-style snack food maker Haldiram brought an action for trademark infringement against Punjab. Haldiram also sought temporary and preliminary injunctive relief to enjoin Punjab from importing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale Punjab’s allegedly gray market goods bearing Haldiram trademarks. Punjab did not make an appearance.

Haldiram distributes its products mostly in the northwestern U.S. According to the complaint, Haldiram products made for the U.S. market are “materially different” in composition and formulation from the versions sold domestically in India. Haldiram’s U.S. market products also bore the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required “Nutrition Facts” labels.

Haldiram alleged that one of its distributors found Punjab was selling apparently infringing gray market products, i.e., apparently real but not legally “genuine” products Haldiram originally made for the India market. Product labeling indicated “NOT FOR EXPORT” and included temporary “Nutrition Facts” stickers. Haldiram alleged Punjab was not an authorized importer, distributor, or reseller of Haldiram products.

Haldiram said it sent correspondence to Punjab but did not receive a response until Haldiram counsel sent a cease and desist letter in October 2024. Punjab allegedly stated it did not intend to act as a distributor, said it was not aware of import restrictions, and requested a conference to discuss Haldiram’s proper distribution channels.

Haldiram filed suit on August 4, 2025. Haldiram asserted claims for Federal Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114; Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and Common Law Unfair Competition. Haldiram said it served the complaint and a draft of its ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and order to show cause on August 15, 2025. Haldiram filed its application or motion on August 20, but the court denied the ex parte TRO relief citing Haldiram delay in seeking it. The court said the delay undercut the professed need for emergent relief. However, the court set a briefing schedule to show cause for preliminary injunctive relief.

Punjab then filed a motion to extend its September 10 response deadline, but the court denied it because Punjab, a business entity, filed the motion pro se. In the same order, the court granted Haldiram’s motion for entry of default, and Punjab did not appear or respond thereafter.

Likelihood of success. The court said it construed Punjab’s failure to respond as an admission that Haldiram’s motion had merit. However, even without such an admission, the court said it found Haldiram showed a likelihood of success on the merits.

Haldiram argued it was likely to succeed because Punjab is selling materially different gray market Haldiram India products in the U.S. without authorization. Haldiram said it established valid trademark rights and that Punjab’s sale of Haldiram India products was likely to confuse U.S. consumers.

The court agreed that Haldiram owns several presumably valid and pertinent U.S. registered trademarks for various snacks. Haldiram therefore has presumed exclusive right to use the marks for the goods listed in the registration. Moreover, Haldiram made a facial showing that Punjab sold and is selling goods using the Haldiram marks without permission. The court said it did not need to parse which products were covered because the scope of registration validity and the scope of relief for infringement are not coextensive.

The court also found, for purposes of preliminary relief, that the Haldiram products at issue facially fell within the definition of gray-market goods, that is, goods bearing valid trademarks imported without consent of the U.S. trademark holder. Haldiram made an uncontested facial showing the snacks were made in India for the India market but imported into the U.S. without Haldiram consent.

However, whether the products were technically gray-market did not ultimately determine infringement or the solution thereto. Gray-market products do not infringe if they are “genuine,” i.e., if they do not materially differ from the U.S. trademark owner’s product. What really mattered here was whether the products were materially different, and Haldiram made a facial showing that was so. Haldiram contended there were material differences in packaging, labeling, product composition and formulation, and customer service procedure. For example, Haldiram made a facial showing that U.S. and India market versions of Haldiram’s Kaju Mixture contain different concentrations of cashews and also vary in other ingredients. Such differences made the India products materially different and thus not legally “genuine.”

The court found a likelihood of customer confusion after applying the Sleekcraft factors even though Haldiram did not address the factors directly. See AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348–54 (9th Cir. 1979). Haldiram applied enough alleged facts for the court to apply Sleekcraft.

First, the marks involved were identical, and that weighed unequivocally in favor of finding consumer confusion. Second, the marks were also strong. Third, although Haldiram did not present direct evidence of actual consumer confusion, the court noted the Ninth Circuit has recognized a likelihood of confusion may be found without such evidence. The fourth factor, high relatedness of the goods, also weighed heavily in Haldiram’s favor. The fifth factor, the parties’ normal marketing channels, also weighed in Haldiram’s favor because the disputed products were being sold through Haldiram’s usual retail channels in the state of Washington. The sixth factor, the type of goods involved and the degree of buyer care, also weighed in favor of Haldiram. On the seventh factor, the court said it could presume intent to deceive consumers based on the identical nature of the marks used. Punjab appeared to be selling Haldiram’s products without authorization. Stickers placed over the “not for export” labeling bolstered presumed intent, and Punjab did not make an appearance to negate that presumption. The last factor, whether either party was likely to expand direct competition, was neutral because there was no pertinent evidence in the record. The court accordingly found Haldiram showed a likelihood of success on its trademark infringement claim.

Irreparable harm. The court noted how the Trademark Modernization Act amendment of 15 U.S.C. 1116 relating to injunctive relief in trademark actions meant Haldiram was entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm. Punjab did not appear or respond to rebut. However, the court also found Haldiram showed a likelihood of irreparable harm to its goodwill that would defy quantification.

Equities. The court agreed with Haldiram that the balance of equities weighed in its favor. Punjab apparently had no right to sell Haldiram’s goods. Therefore, an injunction would not diminish Punjab’s rights, whereas Punjab appeared likely to continue violating Haldiram’s trademark rights and thereby impose hardship on Haldiram. As for the public interest, the court likewise agreed with Haldiram that a preliminary injunction would benefit the public interest in preventing consumer confusion.

Injunction scope. The court granted the proposed preliminary injunction with the exception of certain overbroad relief. The court held the “confusingly similar” portion of its requested injunction was overbroad and vague. Haldiram also proposed prohibiting Punjab from using Haldiram marks on any product not authorized for sale in the U.S. including “but not limited to” the products Haldiram manufactures for sale in India. The court did not analyze whether Haldiram’s gray market goods, beyond those made for sale in India, would qualify as “genuine” if sold in the U.S. This provision was also “overbroad.” The court found the remainder of the proposed injunction narrowly tailored to stop Punjab from continuing to infringe on Haldiram’s trademarks.

The court accordingly enjoined Punjab and anyone participating with it, as only summarized here, from trading in any products manufactured for sale in India, but not authorized for sale in the U.S. market, bearing three specific Haldiram trademark registrations (nos. 2,766,286; 2,357,883, and 1,963,956).

No bond. The court did not require a bond because it found no likelihood that the injunction would harm Punjab.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-01462-LK.

Judge: King, L.

Attorneys: Jennifer McGuone Lantz (Duanne Morris LLP) for Haldiram India P. Ltd.

Companies: Haldiram India P. Ltd.; Punjab Trading Inc.

Cases: Trademark WashingtonNews