The plaintiff claims that the defendant Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. produced its own line of chocolate biscuits with vanilla cream filling under the brand "FAB!O" in or around January 2020.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant used the brands FAB and FAB! for its biscuits before the year 2020.
After 2020, the defendant began selling chocolate sandwich cookies with cream filling under the trademark "FAB!O." The plaintiff notes that only cream-filled chocolate sandwich biscuits—identical to the biscuits she makes and sells under the OREO trademark—are being offered under the FAB!O mark. The Defendant continues to utilise the FAB! mark for all other biscuits.
The plaintiff claims that despite being spelled FAB!O, the mark on the defendant's biscuit must be pronounced FABIO. As a result, the plaintiff claims that the mark is confusingly similar to his OREO mark.

The plaintiff claims that the defendant Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. introduced its own line of vanilla cream filled chocolate cookies under the brand "FAB!O" in or around January 2020.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant used the brands FAB and FAB! for its biscuits before the year 2020. After 2020, the defendant began selling chocolate sandwich cookies with cream filling under the trademark "FAB!O."
The plaintiff notes that the OREO trademark is solely used in connection with cream-filled chocolate sandwich cookies, which are the same cookies that the plaintiff makes and sells under the FAB!O mark.
It is asserted that the trade dress of the package used by the defendant to produce and market its FAB!O biscuits is similarly misleadingly similar to the trade dress of the package used by the plaintiff.

There is no phonetic connection between the words "OREO" and "FAB!O," the defendant claims. He emphasizes that these two nouns simply share the letter "O" in common.
Referencing the rulings of learned Single Judges of the Court in the cases of Biofarms v. Sanjay Medical Store1, Cadila Laboratories Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd.2, CFA Institute v. Brickwork Finance Academy3, and Diageo North America, Inc. v. Shiva Distilleries Ltd.4, Mr. Sethi argues that it is impossible to say that two marks are phonetically similar if their first syllables differ.
The Defendant submits that the OREO mark of the plaintiff is phonetically, aesthetically, and structurally distinct from the mark FAB!Outilised by the defendant on its biscuit packages.

The court ruled that because there isn't another biscuit with a similar name, a customer is likely to mix up the two goods. Parle is not permitted to use the trademarks "FABIO" or "FAB!O" for any reason, according to Justice C. Hari Shankar.
The Court ruled that although it wouldn't apply to stocks that had already been released to the market, "this injunction shall also apply to stocks now in the defendant's control and as yet uncleared."