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
| 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:—
(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
Alfred Dunhill Limited v. Kartar Singh Makkar
Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Surya Rao Trading as Leo Foods & Beverages
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta
Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K. Dhawan
Bata India Limited v. Chawla Boot House
Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. AIR 1960 SC 142
Corn Products Refining Co. v. Skangrila Food Products Ltd. (1960) 1 SCR 968
Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Rajesh Bharti
Dreams Lingerie Products v. Akash Chawdhary
Erven Warnink B.V. v. J. Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd. 1980 RPC 31
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories
Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Scotch Whisky Association
Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah
People Interactive (India) Private Limited v. Vivek Pahwa
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. Frost Falcon Distilleries Limited
PhonePe Private Limited v. EZY Services
Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 2 SCC 448
Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel
The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition and protection of the well-known mark 'OFFICER'S CHOICE' and the grant of permanent injunction against unauthorized use of the m....
The court found that despite phonetic similarity, the distinctiveness of trade marks and differences in intended consumer bases negate the likelihood of confusion and passing off.
The court established that overall similarity in trade dress can lead to consumer confusion, warranting an injunction against the use of a similar label.
The court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff for trademark infringement, recognizing 'Officer’s Choice' as a well-known mark and emphasizing the irreparable harm from the defend....
Generic and descriptive terms in trademarks cannot be exclusively claimed, and likelihood of confusion must be assessed holistically from the average consumer's perspective.
The court emphasized likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark law, holding that similar marks can infringe established trademarks regardless of differences in service or field, thus supporting t....
The court affirmed that deceptive similarity exists between competing trademarks in cases of passing off, even among different product classes, when substantial goodwill is established.
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.