Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Radico Khaitan Limited – Appellant
Versus
Sarao Distillery (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's mark and product details. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court granted interim injunction. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. plaintiff argues mark similarity and sales. (Para 6) |
| 4. deceptive similarity of marks established. (Para 7 , 12) |
| 5. previous rulings support plaintiff's case. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. defendants restrained from using mark. (Para 13) |
| 7. interim order continues pending suit. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I.A. 4356/2021 (for stay)
2. The present injunction application has been filed seeking ad interim injunction in respect of the use of the mark `EVENING MOMENT' by the Defendants, which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark `MAGIC MOMENTS' registered in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages.
3. The case of the Plaintiff is that it is one of the largest manufacturers and sellers of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in India. One of its leading products branded as `MAGIC MOMENTS' has annual sales of more than Rs.1,700/- crores in the year 2019-2020, and cumulative sales of 15 years from 2005 to 2020 of over Rs.11,000/- crores. The grievance in the present suit was that the Defendant No.1 w
Marks are considered deceptively similar if they share essential features likely to cause consumer confusion; a prima facie case for infringement justifies an injunction.
Deceptive similarity of trademarks and the dominant feature of a mark in determining trademark infringement.
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 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....
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 found that despite phonetic similarity, the distinctiveness of trade marks and differences in intended consumer bases negate the likelihood of confusion and passing off.
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
