District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.

The Haldiram Products and the Discovery of Unauthorized Products in Washington State

Haldiram argued that it manufactures distinct versions of its snack products for different markets. For instance, products intended for the United States include FDA-compliant nutrition facts panels, U.S.-specific formulations (e.g., different ingredient percentages and absence of certain dyes and spices), and customer service information tied to U.S. entities. By contrast, Haldiram’s India-market versions lack FDA-compliant labels, contain ingredients not included in the U.S. formulations, and bear packaging expressly marked “NOT FOR EXPORT.” 

Haldiram’s U.S. distributor discovered the unauthorized products in July 2024 when employees observed India-market items—marked “NOT FOR EXPORT”— in a customer’s vehicle. The customer identified Punjab Trading as the source. Subsequent visits to Punjab Trading’s warehouse and multiple local retailers revealed numerous India-market packages with makeshift “Nutrition Facts” stickers and other label alterations, including stickers placed over “NOT FOR EXPORT” notices.

The Court’s Reasoning for Granting in Part the Preliminary Injunction

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its federal trademark infringement claim because it demonstrated valid ownership of several federally registered trademarks and showed that the products Punjab Trading imported and sold were materially different from the authorized U.S. versions. The opinion emphasized that gray market goods infringe when they materially differ from the trademark owner’s authorized domestic products. 

In its analysis, the court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hokto Kinoko Co. v. Concord Farms, Inc., 738 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2013). In Hokto, the Ninth Circuit held that imported gray market goods infringe when they are not “genuine,” meaning they materially differ from the trademark owner’s authorized U.S. products, and it stressed that even subtle differences — such as variations in ingredients, cultivation methods, or packaging — can be material because they affect consumer expectations. The court found it significant that Hokto’s Japanese mushrooms contained different strains, were grown with different pesticides, and included packaging directed to a foreign customer service system, all of which created products materially different from the U.S. versions.

Similarly, in the Haldiram decision, the district court found that the Indian-market products differed from products intended for the U.S. market in formulation, labeling, FDA compliance,^[1] and customer service information, all of which the court determined were differences consumers would consider relevant when making purchasing decisions. As the court found the goods to be non-genuine, it then analyzed whether sale of those goods was likely to cause consumer confusion. The court concluded confusion was likely based on application of the Ninth Circuit’s Sleekcraft factors: the marks were identical, the goods were directly competing in the same retail channels, the products were low-cost snack items that consumers would not scrutinize carefully, and Punjab Trading’s conduct such as covering “NOT FOR EXPORT” labels and adding makeshift nutrition stickers supported a presumption of intent to confuse. With most factors weighing heavily in Haldiram’s favor, the court held that the likelihood-of-success element was satisfied. 

Irreparable Harm, Balance of Equities,  and Public Interest

The court further determined that Haldiram had established irreparable harm. Irreparable harm is presumed for purposes of a preliminary injunction in a trademark case upon a showing of likely success on the merits, and Punjab Trading offered no evidence to rebut that presumption. The court also credited declarations explaining how Punjab Trading’s sales harmed Haldiram’s goodwill, brand value, and customer relationships categories of harm that courts consistently view as difficult to quantify and therefore irreparable.

The balance of equities likewise favored Haldiram because Punjab had no legal right to sell the unauthorized products, meaning the injunction merely prevented continued unlawful conduct. Without injunctive relief, the court found, Punjab would likely persist in activities that damaged Haldiram’s trademark rights and marketplace reputation. 

Finally, the court concluded that an injunction served the public interest by preventing consumer confusion and ensuring that only compliant, authorized versions of the products entered the U.S. market.

Timing of Motion

On August 20, 2025, Haldiram filed its motion for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, nearly a year after Haldiram sent correspondence to Punjab regarding their unauthorized actions. The following day, the court denied the request for an ex parte TRO, finding that “Haldiram’s lengthy delay in seeking that relief undercut its professed need for emergency relief before Punjab could be heard.” However, the court did grant Haldiram’s request for an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue and set a briefing schedule prior to issuing the instant order.

Scope of the Injunction

The court held that certain aspects of the proposed injunction were overbroad or vague. It granted relief only to the extent necessary to prevent Punjab from importing, distributing, or selling materially different Haldiram products not intended for the U.S. market. The court declined to require a bond, finding no realistic likelihood of harm to Punjab from being prevented from selling products it had no right to sell.