IMPORTANT POINT
Unauthorized use of a trade dress and packaging similar to that of another party's products constitutes copyright and trademark infringement, leading to the grant of permanent injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)

I.A. 5415/2023(under Order XIIIA r/w Section 151 of CPC on behalf of Plaintiffs)

Case of the Plaintiffs

1. The present suit relates to copyright infringement of a distinctive trade dress and packaging associated with Plaintiffs' mineral water product manufactured and sold under the brand "TATA WATER PLUS", as well as infringement of Plaintiffs' registered well-known trademark "TATA" and "TATA WATER PLUS". Plaintiffs seek inter alia permanent injunction, damages and rendition of accounts. Defendant is engaged in the business of marketing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, advertising packaged drinking water under the brand/name "ZINC WATER PLUS", with a trade dress, i.e., , which is similar to that of the Plaintiffs'.

2. Plaintiff No. 1 owns the well-known trademark "TATA" and its various permutations/combinations thereof, including the mark "TATA WATER PLUS" in Classes 16 and 32. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 have been permitted to use the mark "TATA WATER PLUS" vide a trademark license agreement dated 26th August, 2011. Plaintiffs are also the registered proprietors of "HIMALAYAN", "TATA GLUCO PLUS", "TATA GLUCO+", and other marks containing and comprising these marks. Plaintiffs' "TATA WATER PLUS" products bearing the packaging, artistic work (copyright in which is owned by Plaintiffs) and trade dress are reproduced below:

3. Plaintiffs have supplied a table of approximate revenues and expenditure on advertising and marketing, which is reproduced below:

4. Owing to the Plaintiffs' long, uninterrupted and continuous use of the said unique trade dress and packaging for the aforementioned products, the said trade dress and packaging has acquired a secondary significance, distinctiveness and a unique association with the Plaintiffs' business. Therefore, any person using the said packaging or the essential features of the artistic work or brand identifiers of the said packaging on its products is bound to create confusion as to the source or origin of such products.

5. The Defendant (Tushar Fulare) is purportedly the sole proprietor of an entity called M/s. Zinc International Corporation, engaged in the business of marketing, selling, offering for sale, distributing and advertising of packaged drinking water under the brand/name "ZINC WATER PLUS" i.e. ("Impugned Marks"), which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' trademark. During early February, 2022, the Plaintiffs through various sources learnt that the Defendant is dealing in packaged drinking mineral water bearing the Impugned Marks, and an independent investigator hired by the Plaintiffs confirmed the same. Internet searches revealed that the Defendant entity has its own official websites at <www.immunitywaterplus.com> and <www.zincwaterplus.com>. These websites clearly mention that the Defendant entity is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply of packaged drinking water bottles under the Impugned Marks. The investigator is said to have visited the manufacturing facilities of the Defendant, and photographs annexed to the plaint demonstrate that the Defendant had been engaged in manufacture of a significant quantity of packaged water products bearing similarity to that of the Plaintiffs' trademarks. The investigation also revealed that associates of the Defendant were offering franchisees, and without authorization from the Plaintiffs, promising business contracts with the Plaintiffs in exchange for money.

Present Proceedings

6. There is no reply filed to the instant application. Defendant has also not filed written statement to controvert Plaintiffs' assertions or led evidence to prove the contrary. Thus, there is deemed admission of Plaintiffs' claim in entirety and the Court need not delve into any other aspect. Nonetheless, documentary evidence produced before the Court proves Plaintiffs' case for grant of reliefs sought in the suit. Mr. Manish Sharma, counsel for Defendant, on instructions, states that he does not have any ob