Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Conducting Activities – Respondent
CS (COMM) 103 of 2022 & I.A.2452 of 2022
Decided On : 13-07-2023
OFFICER'S CHOICE - Trademark Infringement - CS (COMM) 1227/2016, CS (COMM) 115/2022 - The court discussed the well-known status of the mark 'OFFICER'S CHOICE' and granted permanent injunction against unauthorized use of the mark, emphasizing the strength and recognition of the mark in various decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sought injunction against unauthorized use of the mark 'OFFICER'S CHOICE' and its product on a Facebook page by the Defendant. The Defendant's identity was not known, and Facebook removed the objectionable post and page upon court order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff established a prima facie case for grant of ex-parte ad interim injunction, and the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's rights in the mark 'OFFICER'S CHOICE' have been repeatedly recognized in various decisions.
Issues: Unauthorized use of the mark 'OFFICER'S CHOICE' and its product on a Facebook page by the Defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the well-known status of the mark 'OFFICER'S CHOICE' and granted permanent injunction against unauthorized use of the mark, highlighting the strength and recognition of the mark in various decisions.
Final Decision: The court decreed permanent injunction against the Defendant and anyone else from using the mark 'OFFICER'S CHOICE' label, logos, or making any reference to the Plaintiff's product on any social media platform.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present suit was filed by the Plaintiff-M/s Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. seeking injunction against unauthorized use of the mark "OFFICER'S CHOICE", the bottle, the label and the product itself in a Facebook page by the Defendant-Ashok Kumar.
3. The Court had perused the said Facebook page and had passed the following order dated 14th February, 2022.
"19. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark "Officer's Choice" since 1988. Furthermore, the mark "Officer's Choice" has been declared as a "well known trade mark" by this Court vide judgment dated 16th January, 2017 in CS (COMM) 1227/2016 titled Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Surya Rao Trading as Leo Foods & Beverages.
20. On 9th February, 2022, the plaintiffs representative came across the impugned web page on Facebook being https://www.facebook.com/officerchoice1, which contains obscene, vulgar and derogatory social media posts and which page has dishonestly adopted the mark [IMG] the image [IMG] the name "Officer's Choice" and the description "@officerchoicel. Wine/Spirits".
21. Issue notice to the defendant John Doe, whose identity is not known, through all permissible modes.
22. Reply be filed within four weeks.
23. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
24. I have gone through the impugned web page on Facebook, which contains obscene posts along with the plaintiffs trade mark.
25. In my view, the plaintiff has been able to establish a prima facie case in its favour for grant of ex-parte ad interim injunction. Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. Irreparable harm and injury would be caused to the plaintiff's reputation and posting of such content is diluting the trade mark of the plaintiff.
26. Consequently, the defendant is directed to immediately take down the impugned webpage being https://www.facebook.com/officerchoicel and restrained from using the plaintiffs trade mark as detailed in paragraph 8 of the plaint.
27. The Grievance Officer of Facebook is directed to immediately take down the impugned web page and provide all available details about the defendant to the plaintiff."
4. In view of the fact that the Defendant's identity was not known, Facebook had given effect to the order and removed the reference to the Plaintiff's product. The Defendant has not entered appearance in the matter.
5. Since the objectionable post and the Facebook page have been removed by Facebook, upon the service of the order being effected, no further purpose would be served in continuing the suit.
6. The Defendant is proceeded against ex-parte.
7. Following the rationale of the judgment of a ld. Single of this Court in Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr. v. Balraj Muttneja & Ors., [CS (OS) 3466/2012 decided on 20th February, 2014], no ex-parte evidence would be required in this matter.
8. The Plaintiff's rights in the mark "OFFICER'S CHOICE" have been repeatedly recognised in various decisions as mentioned below.
9. The operative portion of CS (COMM) 1227/2016 `Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surya Rao', [Decided on: 16.01.2017] wherein the mark " OFFICER'S CHOICE" was held to be a well-known mark, is extracted hereinbelow:
"17. In this context, PW1 has deposed to the effect that:
"i. The plaintiff (through its predecessor) is using the mark "Officer's Choice"
continuously and extensively since the year 1988;
ii. The plaintiff's sales of the products bearing the trademark "Officer's Choice" and other related marks have increased from 1.13 million cases in the year 1994 to 30.18 million in the year 2014-15 (Ex Pw1/46 and Ex Pw1/123);
iii. The plaintiff's expenditure on advertisement and brand promotion of
"Officer's Choice" has increased from ' 6.35 crores in the year 1993-94 to '
264.59 crores in 2014-2015 (Ex Pw1/125);
iv. The exports "Officer's Choice" have arisen from 80,900 cases in 2006-07 to 10,02,456 in the y
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....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition and protection of well-known trade marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the court's application of legal principles to establ....
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.
Deceptive similarity of trademarks and the dominant feature of a mark in determining trademark infringement.
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.
Marks are considered deceptively similar if they share essential features likely to cause consumer confusion; a prima facie case for infringement justifies an injunction.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
