IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Starbucks Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Teaquila A Fashion Cafe & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Suit (COMM) No. 479 of 2019, I.A. No. 12127 of 2019
Decided On : 06-05-2022
Trademark Infringement - Well-known Trademark - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 2(1)(zg), Section 27 - The court found that the Plaintiff's FRaPPUCCINO trademarks have acquired formidable reputation and goodwill in India and the Defendants have used identical marks with respect to similar goods, satisfying the triple identity test. The Defendants were found guilty of infringement and passing off. Notional damages were awarded to the Plaintiff in the absence of concrete evidence of actual damages. Costs were awarded in favor of the Plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, damages, and delivery up of impugned goods, alleging trademark infringement and passing off by the Defendants. The Plaintiff's trademarks had acquired significant reputation and goodwill, and the Defendants were found to have used identical marks with respect to similar goods, satisfying the triple identity test.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Defendants guilty of trademark infringement and passing off, granting a permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiff. Notional damages were awarded due to the absence of concrete evidence of actual damages. Costs were awarded in favor of the Plaintiff.
Issues: Trademark infringement, passing off, damages, costs
Ratio Decidendi: The Plaintiff's trademarks had acquired significant reputation and goodwill, and the Defendants were found to have used identical marks with respect to similar goods, satisfying the triple identity test. Notional damages were awarded in the absence of concrete evidence of actual damages. Costs were awarded in favor of the Plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction, awarding notional damages, and awarding costs in favor of the Plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. - Present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners, etc. from infringing Plaintiff's registered trademark 'FRaPPUCCINO' either alone or with any prefix or suffix or any other confusing and deceptively similar trademark in relation to their goods, services and business as well as passing off. Plaintiff has also prayed for award of damages and delivery up of the impugned goods, menu cards, etc. Decree for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the Defendants by using the FRaPPUCCINO marks is sought as an alternative relief to damages.
2. By order dated 03.09.2019, this Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. Relevant part of the order reads as under:-
'Consequently, till further orders defendant No.1 and 2, their partners, proprietors, licensees, franchisees, representatives are thereby restrained from using in any manner FRaPPUCCINO mark on any of the products sold by them.'
3. Despite service, Defendants did not enter appearance and vide order 28.11.2019, they were proceeded ex parte.
4. Factual exposition to the extent necessary for the present judgement, as narrated in the plaint, is that Plaintiff is a Company organised and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, USa. In 1985, Plaintiff Company was incorporated as STaRBUCKS CORPORaTION and in the year 2019, when the suit was filed, it had 30,626 retail stores in 80 countries and territories around the world.
5. It is averred in the plaint that the Plaintiff uses the trademark FRaPPUCCINO and variations thereof for its widely popular hand-crafted blended cold beverages throughout the world in various flavours. The FRaPPUCCINO mark is registered in over 185 countries and territories in different classes in relation to various goods and services, details whereof have been furnished in the plaint. The trademark registrations are valid and subsisting.
6. It is averred in the plaint that the Plaintiff obtained top-level domain name frappuccino.com on 28.10.1997, which is re-directed to the Plaintiff's parent website at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/frappuccino-blended-beverages. Plaintiff has also obtained other top-level domain names where FRaPPUCCINO is the prominent part. a non-exhaustive list of the domains is given in the plaint.
7. It is stated that world-wide sales figures of the Plaintiff in respect of various products sold under the FRaPPUCCINO mark run into Billion USDs and Plaintiff spends substantial amount on advertisements and sales promotion. The net revenue, as reflected in the plaint, for the Fiscal Year 2018 was 24,719.5 million USD and the amount expended on advertising was 260.3 million USD. It is the case of the Plaintiff that due to extensive use, world-wide sales and marketing and premium quality of the goods sold under the said marks, Plaintiff has earned formidable goodwill and reputation and has garnered attention from national and international media and has featured in various magazines and newspapers, including on websites. Plaintiff has consistently received top-level brand rankings from various brand-evaluation agencies over the past 19 years, which includes Interbrand, a leading International branding consultancy Company, which ranked STaRBUCKS amongst the 'Top 100 Brands' in the world (2000-2018), as also Forbes brand ranking, as being one of the World's Most Valuable Brands. Most valuable brands are the ones that generate massive earnings in industries, where branding plays a major role.
8. It is stated in the plaint that Plaintiff marked its entry into the Indian Market in October 2012 by opening its first store in Mumbai and from then, Plaintiff expanded its presence in India and opened about 145 stores. Plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the trademark FRaPPUCCINO in India in various classes and the registrations are valid and subsisting, giving the Plaintif
Trademark infringement and passing off were established based on the triple identity test, leading to the grant of a permanent injunction. Notional damages were awarded in the absence of concrete evi....
The court applied the provisions under Order XIII-A of the CPC and the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 to grant a Summary Judgment in a commercial dispute involving....
The court affirmed that prior use of a registered trademark provides substantial grounds for an injunction against similar marks, emphasizing deceptive similarity effects on consumer perception.
The court upheld the plaintiff's rights as the prior user and registered owner of the trademark, granting an injunction against the defendant's use of a similar mark due to the likelihood of consumer....
Registered trademark owners are entitled to prevent unauthorized use that is likely to confuse consumers, establishing a right to seek injunction and damages for infringement and passing off.
The impugned marks are deceptively similar to Plaintiff's registered marks, leading to public deception, and the Court passes a summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
A prior user of a trademark is entitled to a permanent injunction against a subsequent user who uses the same or a deceptively similar trademark for similar products, if the subsequent user's use is ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.