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

2022 Supreme(Del) 1967

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Frost Falcon Distilleries Limited - Respondent
IA 2821 of 2021 in CS (COMM) 94 of 2021
Decided On : 02-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Waseem Shuaib Ahmed and Abhijeet Rastogi, Advocates, for the Plaintiff.
Sachin Datta, Senior Advocate with Sidhartha Das, Gajanand Kirodiwal and Ms. Prity Sharma, Advocates, for the Defendant.

Headnote:

CASINOS PRIDE - TRADEMARK - INFRINGEMENT - PASSING OFF - BLENDERS PRIDE AND IMPERIAL BLUE - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION - DECIDED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT - INJUNCTION GRANTED RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT FROM MANUFACTURING, MARKETING, SELLING OR EXPORTING THE IMFL MANUFACTURED BY IT UNDER THE IMPUGNED "CASINOS PRIDE" MARKS.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff alleged that the defendant's mark "CASINOS PRIDE", the label of the defendant, the design of the bottle in which the defendant sells its product and the package in which the bottle is packed all infringe the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendant is seeking to pass off its goods as those of the plaintiff or as associated with the plaintiff and its business.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the defendant's mark "CASINOS PRIDE" does not infringe the plaintiff's registered trademarks "BLENDERS PRIDE" or "IMPERIAL BLUE". However, the court found that the defendant's label, when affixed on the bottle, is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's "IMPERIAL BLUE" marks and that the defendant is passing off its product as that of the plaintiff.

Issues: Whether the defendant's mark "CASINOS PRIDE" infringes the plaintiff's registered trademarks "BLENDERS PRIDE" or "IMPERIAL BLUE". Whether the defendant is passing off its product as that of the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant's mark "CASINOS PRIDE" does not infringe the plaintiff's registered trademarks "BLENDERS PRIDE" or "IMPERIAL BLUE" because the word "PRIDE" is a common word and cannot be exclusively claimed by the plaintiff. The court also held that the defendant's label, when affixed on the bottle, is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's "IMPERIAL BLUE" marks and that the defendant is passing off its product as that of the plaintiff because the defendant has ingeniously combined features of the plaintiff's "BLENDERS PRIDE" and "IMPERIAL BLUE" marks to create an overall label and packaging which is likely to confuse consumers.

Final Decision: The court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, selling or exporting the IMFL manufactured by it under the impugned "CASINOS PRIDE" marks.

JUDGMENT

1. This judgment disposes of IA 2821/2021, preferred by the plaintiff, seeking interim injunction against the defendant.

Facts

2. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's mark "CASINOS PRIDE", the label of the defendant, the design of the bottle in which the defendant sells its product and the package in which the bottle is packed all infringe the plaintiff's registered trademarks.

3. The allegedly infringing product of the defendant, and the package in which it is packed and sold, are the following:

ProductPackage

4. Two products of the plaintiff are subject matter of the present proceedings. Both are IMFL. They are "BLENDERS PRIDE" and "IMPERIAL BLUE". Admittedly, the products of the plaintiff and the defendant belong to the same segment i.e. Indian Made Foreign Miquor (IMFL) and, therefore, cater to the same customer base. They are also, therefore, available from the same outlets.

5. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendant is seeking to pass off its goods as those of the plaintiff or as associated with the plaintiff and its business.

6. The marks that the plaintiff asserts, in this plaint, may be referred to as (i) the BLENDERS PRIDE marks, and (ii) the IMPERIAL BLUE marks, for convenience.

7. Specifically, the registered trade marks of the plaintiff, which the defendant is alleged to have infringed are the following:

    (i) BLENDERS PRIDE mark - the word mark "BLENDERS PRIDE" registered on 25th March, 1994 and valid till 25th March, 2024, under Class 34 (Wines, Spirits and Liqueurs) and

    (ii) IMPERIAL BLUE marks:

Sl. No.Trade MarkRegistration No. & DateClass & Goods DescriptionValid till
11682732
01.05.2008
33
Whisky
01.05.2008
22471714
04.02.2013
33
Alcoholic beverages including whiskies, spirits, brandies, aperitifs, cider and liquerurs'
04.02.2023
33327621
03.08.2016
33
Alcoholic beverages (except beers)
03.08.2026
43296387
28.06.2016
33
Alcoholic beverages (except beers)
28.06.2026
54493973
30.04.2020
33
Alcoholic beverages (except beers)
30.04.2030
63263961
19.05.2016
33
Alcoholic beverages (except beers)
19.05.2026

8. The plaintiff asserts that it has been using the "BLENDERS PRIDE" mark since 1995 and the "IMPERIAL BLUE" marks since 1997. As against this, it is an admitted position that the defendant is using the impugned "CASINOS PRIDE" mark only since 2nd August, 2017. Priority of user of the plaintiff is not, therefore, an issue in controversy in the present case.

9. The defendant also applied for registration of the following mark under Class 33:

Registration, as sought by the defendant, has not been granted, as the defendant's application has been opposed by the plaintiff.

10. One of the protestations of the plaintiff, in the present plaint, is that the package, in which the defendant is marketing its product, uses a blue background. This, according to the plaintiff, is a deliberate departure from the mark which the defendant sought to register (which has a black background), so as to achieve proximity between the defendant's mark and the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The defendant, thus alleges the plaintiff, wants to "come as close" to the plaintiff's mark as possible.

11. According to the plaintiff, the mark "BLENDERS PRIDE" was coined and adopted by the plaintiff's predecessors in 1973. It is claimed that the mark was initially registered in favour of Seagram, Canada in the same year, whereafter it passed various hands till, under Deed of Assignment dated 27th June, 2018, the plaintiff succeeded the proprietorship of the mark. In India, it is claimed that, IMFL has been sold by the plaintiff's predecessors since 1995.

12. The plaintiff also claims to have succeeded to proprietorship over the "IMPERIAL BLUE" mark vide the Assignment Deed dated 27th June, 2018 already cited supra. IMFL (Whisky), it is claimed, is being sold in India under the "IMPERIAL BLUE" mark since 1997.

13. The defendant has not disputed the proprietorship of the plaintiff over the marks that it seeks to assert.

14. As is custom


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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top