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

2023 Supreme(Del) 671

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. – Plaintiff
Versus
SNJ Distillers Private Limited and Another – Defendants
C.S. (COMM) No. 115/2022, I.A. No. 5427/2022
Decided On : 19-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Rajiv Nayar, Akhil Sibal, Shrawan Chopra, Vibhav Mithal, Achyut Tewari, Saurabh Seth, Sanjay Chhabra, Deboshree, Akhil Dehlan, Sandeep Sethi, Chander M. Lall, Kartik Seth, Shriya Gilhotra, Garima Saxena, Sahil Nagpal, Akshit.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 2(1)(zg) and 28(1) - Dispute regarding trademark infringement and passing off involving the marks 'Officer's Choice' and 'Green Choice' - Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain the Defendants from using the impugned mark - Court finds that 'Officer's Choice' is a well-known arbitrary mark entitled to high protection across all classes - The adoption of the mark 'Green Choice' by the Defendants deemed dishonest with potential for consumer confusion due to the identical nature of goods and overlapping markets. (Paras 2, 36, 57 and 78)

(B) The Court held that although there were differences in trade dress, this does not rule out consumer confusion given the facts surrounding the production and marketing of the alcoholic products - The Court also emphasized that the Plaintiff had diligently protected its trademarks against third parties. (Paras 36, 52, 72)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a significant player in the alcoholic beverages market, claimed trademark infringement by the Defendants, who adopted 'Green Choice' for their similar products. The Plaintiff established a longstanding reputation and prior rights in 'Officer's Choice' since its inception in 1988. (Paras 2-4, 10-12, 36)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the likelihood of confusion existed due to similarities in the market and products, which led to a prima facie case for infringement. The Defendants' attempts to differentiate were insufficient and served more to mislead consumers. (Paras 57-78)

Issues: The main issues included whether the marks were deceptively similar and if the Plaintiff had shown acquiescence in the Defendants' use of their mark.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the marks were, in fact, likely to cause confusion among consumers despite attempts to differentiate through usage or branding, thus reaffirming the necessity to protect well-known trademarks aggressively. (Paras 54, 57-61)

Result: The Plaintiff's application for an injunction was granted, and the Defendants were restrained from using the mark 'Green Choice'.

Table of Content
1. injunction sought against use of a similar trademark (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. plaintiff's trademark history and reputation (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. well-known mark protection under law (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. deceptive similarity and potential for confusion (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. defendants' argument on acquiescence and delay (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
6. criteria for establishing likelihood of confusion (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
7. plaintiff's prima facie case for temporary injunction (Para 56 , 57 , 58)
8. final order and its implications (Para 78 , 79 , 80)

JUDGMENT :

JYOTI SINGH, J.

I.A. 2712/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by Plaintiff)

I.A. 4044/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC, by Defendants)

1. This judgment will dispose of the application filed by the Plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, 1908 as well as an application filed under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC filed by the Defendants.

2. Present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and all others acting for or on their behalf from using, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, importing, distributing, advertising directly or indirectly dealing in alcoholic beverages, especially, country spirits and Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) [IMAGE] under the impugned mark or any identical/deceptively similar mark to that of Plaintiff's trademarks ‘Officer's Choice’, ‘Officer's Choice Blue’ and ‘Choice’ amounting to trademark infringement, passing off, dilution and tarnishment as well as for delivery up, damages and rendition of accounts of profits with costs.

3. On 17.02.2022, Court granted ex-parte ad interim injunction against the Defendants restraining them from using, manufacturing, selling, etc., alcoholic beverages, especially, country spirits and IMFL under the impugned trademark ‘Green Choice’ (label) (hereinafter referred to as “Green Choice”) or any other mark, identical/deceptively similar mark to Plaintiff's trademarks ‘Officer's Choice’, ‘Officer's Choice Blue’ and ‘Choice’. Subsequently, an application was filed on behalf of the Defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, seeking vacation of the ex-parte injunction order. Pleadings being complete in both the applications, they were taken up together for hearing.

4. The expose of facts, as set out in the plaint is that:—

    (a) Plaintiff is in the business of manufacturing and marketing alcoholic beverages including IMFL, sold under distinctive trademarks OFFICER'S CHOICE, OFFICER'S CHOICE BLUE, CLASS VODKA, STERLING RESERVE, etc. and labels such as [IMAGE]

    (b) The Officer's Choice trademark was coined and adopted in the year 1988 by predecessor in rights, title and interest of the Plaintiff and was assigned to the Plaintiff along with the goodwill of the business by way of Deed of Assignment dated 26.02.1991. By virtue of a demerger, transfer and vesting of the liquor business of M/s. BDA Pvt. Ltd. with Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. under a Composite Scheme of Arrangement approved by the Bombay High Court on 23.02.2007, Plaintiff became the proprietor of the trademark ‘Officer's Choice’ in several classes. In 2011, Plaintiff expanded into ‘Officer's Choice Blue’ and very recently into ‘Officer's Choice Black’.

    (c) Over the years, Officer's Choice is one of the largest selling whiskies in the world and the trademark has been declared as a well-known trademark in Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Surya Rao Trading as Leo Foods & Beverages , CS (COMM) No. 1227/2016 vide order dated 16.01.2017 under Section 2(1)(zg) of the TRADE MARKS ACT , 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1999 Act’). The products are sold under unique and distinctive labels and packaging. Trademark Officer's Choice has been used continuously, extensively, consistently and exclusively by Plaintiff's predecessors from the year 1988 and subsequently by the Plaintiff. The goods bearing the aforesaid marks are sold across the country a

    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