SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Del) 2812

DELHI HIGH COURT
Jayant Nath, J.
General Mills Marketing Inc & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. - Resopndent
I.A. No. 961/2013 in CS (OS) 110 of 2013
Decided On : 23-07-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiffs:Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Mr. Sumit Wadhwa & Mr. Tushar A. John, Advocates.
For the Defendant:Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Mr. Joseph Pookkatt, Mr. Saurabh S. Sinha and Ms. Jaya Mandelia, Advocates.

The essential features of a trademark, if adopted by the defendant, can lead to infringement, regardless of differences in packaging or pricing.

Headnote:

The plaintiff sought an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendant from using the trademark 'D' DAAZS' or any deceptively similar trademark to that of the plaintiff's trademark 'HAAGEN-DAZS' in relation to their goods or business. The plaintiff claimed extensive credibility and goodwill for their trademark 'HAAGEN-DAZS' and alleged that the defendant's mark was phonetically, structurally, and visually similar. The defendant argued that the essential feature of the plaintiff's trademark is 'HAAGEN' and that there is no scope for confusion due to differences in pricing and packaging. The court found that the word 'DAZS' is an essential feature of the plaintiff's trademark and that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar, likely to cause confusion, and amounted to infringement. The court also rejected the defendant's arguments regarding delay, laches, and honest concurrent use, and granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff.

Jayant Nath, J.:--

I.A. No. 961/2013

1. The present application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2CPC seeking ad interim injunction to restrain the defendant from using thetrademark “D”DAAZS” or any other deceptively similar trademark to that of the plaintiff’s trademark “HAAGEN-DAZS” and “DAZS” in relation to the goods manufactured and/or marketed by them or in relation to their business or in any other manner. The accompanying plaint is filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction and other connected reliefs in relation to its registered trademark “HAAGEN- DAZS” and “DAZS”.

2. As per the averments in the plaint, plaintiff No. 1 is a company existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA. The second plaintiff is an affiliate of plaintiff No. 1 and is registered in India. It is stated that the history of the plaintiffs can be traced back to 1860s. Plaintiff No. 1 claims to be one of the world’s leading food companies, operating in over 100countries including India, marketing more than 100 consumer brands including HAAGEN-DAZS, CHEERIOS, NATURE VALLEY,PILLSBURY etc.

3. It is averred that the plaintiffs provide various products such as ice creams, frozen yogurts and other desserts under the trademark “HAAGENDAZS”. It is averred that “HAAGEN-DAZS” was introduced in the year 1960. It is further averred that the words “HAAGEN” and “DAZS” are coined words and have no dictionary meaning. It is stated that the plaintiff No. 1 has several trademark registrations for the mark “HAAGEN-DAZS” in several countries. It is also been stated that registration for the mark “DAZS” in isolation has also been obtained in China. It is further averred that the plaintiffs under the trademark “HAAGEN-DAZS” have garnered extensive credibility in business and have witnessed tremendous sales resulting in accrual of large scale goodwill and reputation across the globe. It is averred that the net sales worldwide (excluding U.S. and Canada) for “HAAGEN-DAZS” products in the years 2010-2012 is approximately 2.483billion USD. It is also averred that plaintiff No. 1 has expended great sums of money and effort in promoting, advertising and popularizing its trademark “HAAGEN-DAZS” internationally. The advertising and consumer promotion expenditure worldwide (excluding U.S. and Canada) by the plaintiffs for the years 2010-2012 is approximately 0.279 billion USD.

4. It is averred by the plaintiffs that “HAAGEN-DAZS” products are available in India since the year 2007 and were imported through one Taurus International which is engaged in the business of import of branded food and non-food products. It is further averred that in the latter half of the year 2008plaintiff No. 1 directly launched “HAAGEN-DAZS” products in India and the first “HAAGEN-DAZS” shop opened in New Delhi on 11.12.2009.

5. It is further averred that plaintiffs have obtained registrations for the mark “HAAGEN-DAZS” in India in respect of ice cream, ices, sherbet, sorbet and frozen confections in class 30 dated 21.01.1993 and also on 8.01.2008 in classes 29, 30 and 42. It is averred that these marks have been duly renewed, are valid and subsisting. The plaintiffs aver that as they are the proprietors of the mentioned trademark, they have exclusive right to use the trademark “DAZS” in isolation as well, as the same is the part of the registered trademark “HAAGEN-DAZS” under registration Nos. 588965,588966 and 1639044 and is subject of separate applications which are pending registration in class 29, 30 and 43. The gross sales figure for “HAAGEN-DAZS” products in India for the year 2010-2011 is Rs. 11.3crores. It is also urged by the plaintiffs that while carrying out a search on the internet for “DAZS” in isolation, it shows reference of the first plaintiff only.

6. It is urged that in or around January 2011, the plaintiff’s attention was drawn to an application filed by the defendant on January 13, 2010 for registration of the trademark “D”DAAZS” under number 1908477 in



























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top