The judgment establishes the importance of protecting geographical indications and intellectual property rights, emphasizing the specific criteria for a product to be considered as a geographical indication and the prohibition of passing off goods.

MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

( 1 ) THE Plaintiffs have filed this suit for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant and those acting under the Defendant from dealing, in any manner, with whisky under the name "red Scot" or any other name containing the word "scot" or any word similar thereto so that the Defendant cannot pass off its whisky as Scotch whisky.

( 2 ) ON 22nd April, 2004, summons were issued in the suit and the Defendant was restrained from dealing in any whisky containing the word "scot". Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of the Defendant. Accordingly, by an order dated 10th December, 2004, the Defendant was proceeded against ex parte.

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the Plaintiffs filed an affidavit in evidence dated 18th august, 2005. The contents of this affidavit have not been denied by the defendant and are, therefore, deemed to be admitted.

( 4 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 is an association, which is registered as a company in the United Kingdom. Plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 are members of the association.

( 5 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 has been incorporated with the object of protecting and promoting the interests of the Scotch whisky trade both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

( 6 ) THE Plaintiffs have placed on record the C of the Act defines Scotch whisky in the following words: -"scotch Whisky" means such whisky (distilled and matured in Scotland) as conforms to a definition of Scotch whisky contained in an order made under this subsection by the Ministers. "

( 7 ) SECTION 1 of the Act makes it unlawful to produce in Scotland, or to keep in Scotland for the purposes of maturation, or to keep or use in Scotland for the purpose of blending, a distillate of spirits produced as described in the definition of whisky unless it is or, as the case may be, has been produced as described in any definition of Scotch whisky contained in an order under that section.

( 8 ) RULE 3 of the Scotch Whisky Order, 1990 defines Scotch Whisky as under: -"3. For the purpose of the Act "scotch Whisky" means whisky " (a) which has been produced at a distillery in Scotland from water and malted barley (to which only whose grains of other cereals may be added) all of which have been " (i) processed at that distillery into a mash; (ii) converted to a fermentable substrate only by endogenous enzyme systems; and (iii) fermented only by the addition of yeast; (b) which has been distilled at an alcoholic strength by volume of less than 94. 8 per cent so that the distillate has an aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used in, and the method of, its production; (c) which has been matured in an excise warehouse in Scotland in oak casks of a capacity not exceeding 700 litres, the period of that maturation being not less than 3 years; (d) which retains the colour, aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used in, and the method of, its production and maturation; and (e) to which no substance other than water and spirit caramel has been added. "

( 9 ) THE purpose of referring to the Scotch Whisky Act and the Scotch Whisky order is to show that even in Scotland all whiskys that are produced need not necessarily fall within the definition of Scotch Whisky.

( 10 ) SCOTCH Whisky is available worldwide and the Plaintiffs have placed on record the sales figures of Scotch whisky and some sample advertisements in various airlines including Indian Airlines and Air India. In other words, scotch whisky is known worldwide as a whisky produced in Scotland and is advertised as such.

( 11 ) THE Plaintiffs say that they came to know that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling "red Scot" Whisky. Since the name "red Scot" whisky gives an impression that it is Scotch whisky, the Plaintiffs sent a legal notice to the Defendant on 30th September, 2000 advising it not to use the word "scot" in its whisky. Even though the Defendant received the notice, no reply was sent thereto.

( 12 ) THEREAFTER, the Plaintiffs sent another letter dated 26th May, 2001 to the Defendant reques

Click Here to Read the rest of this document