Back
2011 Supreme(Del) 591
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
Champagne Moet & Chandon ..... Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.N. Mahabir, Adv.
Ms.Preeti Dalal with Ms.Mithu Jain, Advs. for Resp. No.1 and 2.
LPA No.588/2011
Decided On : 19th September, 2011
The importance of establishing goodwill and reputation in the market, the distinction between goods and distribution channels, and the impact of acquiescence on trademark disputes.
Headnote:
Trademark - Trademark Dispute - Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 11(a), 11(e), 12(3), 33 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to trademark registration, prior user, and concurrent user. It highlighted the importance of establishing goodwill and reputation in the market, the distinction between goods and distribution channels, and the impact of acquiescence on trademark disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a wine manufacturer, challenged the registration of the trademark 'MOET?S' by the third respondent, a partnership firm, under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The appellant claimed prior registration of the trademark 'MOET' and 'MOET & CHANDON' and alleged fraudulent adoption by the third respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to establish its goodwill and reputation in the Indian market and that the goods and distribution channels of the parties were different. It held that the third respondent's adoption of the mark was not fraudulent and that the appellant's acquiescence to the registration in Class 16 weakened its challenge.
Issues: The issues included the establishment of goodwill and reputation, the distinction between goods and distribution channels, fraudulent adoption of the mark, and the impact of acquiescence on the challenge to trademark registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence of the appellant's goodwill and reputation, the distinction between the goods and distribution channels, and the impact of acquiescence on the challenge to trademark registration.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found no merit in the appellant's challenge to the trademark registration.
In this intra-Court appeal, the assail is to the legal pregnability and substantiality of the order dated 19th May, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 9778/2006.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which are necessitous to be stated are that the appellant is a registered company established under the laws of France and is a well-known manufacturer of wine which it is selling under the trademark „MOET?, „MOET & CHANDON? and other brands in more than 150 countries of the world. The appellant has stated about the foundation of the company, on the trademark it has attached to it and how eventually it came to be known as „MOET & CHANDON?. The appellant as early as 1906 brought champagne bearing the mark „MOET? and since then the said brand of champagne has been sold in India. The appellant holds registration of the trademark „MOET? in class 33 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short „the 1958 Act?) under No. 396612 with effect from 15th October, 1982 and for the trademark „MOET & CHANDON? under Registration No. 439835B with effect from 5th July, 1985.
3. The third respondent, namely, M/s Moet?s, a partnership firm operating from 50, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The trademark „MOET?S? was first coined and adopted by the said respondent in 1967. It is claimed that the said name was adopted from Hindi word „MOHIT?, which was the name of one of the partners. The said trade name, as claimed by the third respondent, by virtue of its long, continuous, extensive and exclusive use, has acquired goodwill and reputation among the public and the trade and is associated and identified by the purchasing public with the name of the said firm. It applied for registration of the trade mark „MOET?S? in Class 29 on 28th July, 1986 and its application was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 965 dated 16th August, 1989. The appellant filed its opposition to the said registration. Certain documents were brought on record by the appellant with regard to its prior registration correspondence, etc.
4. The opposition put forth by the appellant was rejected by an order dated 12th June, 1995 by the Registering Authority and directed the trade mark application No. 457636 in Class 29 of the third respondent to proceed to registration.
5. As is evident from the material brought on record, the DR while allowing the application of the third respondent and rejecting the opposition of the appellant opined that though the rival marks are identical but the goods being respectively manufactured and marketed by the parties were not the same or of the same description; that the appellant?s specification of goods pertain to „quality wines, spirits and liquors? in Class 33 whereas the goods of the third respondent were „meat, fish, poultry and game and meat extracts?, which are included in Class 29; that the appellant had failed to establish its user since 1947 and its registration was only from 15th October, 1982 and further the annual sales figures for the year 1980-1990 were given in French Francs and not in Indian currency; that the bills furnished by the appellant do not bear the signatures of the issuing authorities or the trademark of the appellant in the text; that the bills produced were for the year 1980 onwards; that the mark applied for by the third respondent was a significant part of its trading style since 1967 and, therefore, it could not be said that adoption and user of the mark of the third respondent was dishonest; that the third respondent has shown sales figures from 1968 and hence, the appellant?s objection with reference to Sections 11(a) and 11(e) of the 1958 Act was unsustainable; that the third respondent had used the mark for a substantial period and, therefore, it qualified for registration under Section 9 of the 1958 Act; and that the application of the third respondent was registerable within the meaning of Section 12(3) and 33 of the 1958 Act.
6. Being dissatisfied with
