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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Diageo Brands B.V. - Appellant
Versus
Great Galleon Ventures Limited - Respondent
CS(COMM) 87 of 2021
Decided On : 02-08-2022




The court affirmed the necessity to protect unique visual designs, emphasizing the significant visual impression in establishing design infringement regardless of minor differences, thereby granting an injunction.

Headnote:(A) Designs Act, 2000 - Section 19 - Injunction - The Plaintiffs claim infringement of their Registered Design No. 306577 concerning the 180 ml liquor bottle known as 'Hipster'. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant's product resembles their design closely, constituting an obvious imitation; the Defendant argued the design lacks originality and is functional. The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case for injunction, emphasizing that the visual appeal should outweigh minor differences. The injunction is upheld, preventing the Defendant from manufacturing or selling similar products until final adjudication. (Paras 20-99)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs, part of a liquor manufacturing group, launched the Hipster bottle in 2019, asserting design ownership and claiming considerable investment in its marketing. The Defendant began selling competing products that the Plaintiffs characterize as a 'slavish imitation' of their design.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Plaintiffs had demonstrated that their Registered Design had sufficient unique features that were readily identifiable, granting an injunction against the Defendant's product which bore substantial resemblance to the Plaintiffs' design.

Issues: The principal issues included whether the plaintiffs could claim that their design was new and original, whether the defendant produced an obvious imitation, and if the design was purely functional affecting its protection under the act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court stated that while originality and novelty are required for design protection, variations in design which offer significantly different visual impressions suffice for registration. The Defendant’s design was deemed an infringement based on established visual similarities.

Result: The injunction against the Defendant's competing product is made absolute.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and parties involved (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments presented by both parties (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. court's analysis of design's ownership and validity (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. grounds for cancellation of design registration (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
5. conclusion and order for injunction ruling (Para 96 , 97 , 98 , 99)

JUDGMENT

CONTENTS
I. BRIEF FACTS
II. ARGUMENTS BY THE PLAINTIFFS (IN BRIEF)
III. ARGUMENTS BY THE DEFENDANT (IN BRIEF)
IV. REJOINDER ARGUMENTS BY PLAINTIFFS
V. ISSUES & ANALYSIS
1. Who is the proprietor of the Registered Design?
2. What is the legal effect of registration of a design for deciding the relief of grant of injunction?
3. Has a prima facie case been established to show fraudulent and obvious imitation of the Plaintiffs' Registered design, so as to warrant an injunction?
4. Has the Defendant demonstrated any ground of challenge enumerated under Section 19 of the Act, and if so, what is its effect?
A. Whether the Plaintiffs' Registered Design is liable to be cancelled on the ground of not being a new or original design due to existence of prior art.
B. Whether the Plaintiffs' Registered Design is liable to be cancelled on the ground of mosaicing
C. Whether the Plaintiffs' Registered Design is liable to be cancelled on the ground that it is functional in nature
5. Is there similarity in the trade-dress/get-up, constituting passing-off, and if so, can an injunction can be granted on that ground?
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS

I.A. 2608/2021 (application by Plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) & I.A. 4231/2021 (application by Defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

1. The Plaintiffs who claim to have spent millions to develop a "new" 180 ml liquor bottle design - marketed as the "Hipster bottle" - are aggrieved with its lock, stock and barrel copying by the Defendant; who, on the other hand, labels both the Plaintiffs and itself as pirates, sailing in the same high seas of prior art(s).

I. BRIEF FACTS

2. Plaintiffs are part of the Diageo group of companies, involved in the business of manufacturing, selling, distributing and marketing of inter alia alcoholic beverages. Plaintiff No. 1 [Diageo Brands B.V.] is the proprietor of the marks `Vat 69' and `Black & White', including their formative marks, logos, device marks, labels and trade dress. Plaintiff No. 2 [United Spirits Ltd.] is the Indian distributor of Plaintiff No. 1's brands viz. `Vat 69' and `Black & White', and also manufactures, sells, distributes and markets its own brand i.e., `Black Dog', being the proprietor of its formative marks, logos, device marks, labels and the trade dress.

3. Plaintiff No. 1 is the proprietor of the Plaintiffs' Registered Design bearing No. 306577 [hereinafter, "Plaintiffs' Registered Design"] under the Designs Act, 2000 [hereinafter, "Designs Act"] in respect of the bottle design known as "Hipster" in India, and "Pocket Scotch" globally.

4. Plaintiffs also claim common law rights in the trade dress and get up of the Hipster bottle for the products `Black Dog (Black Reserve)', `Black Dog (Golden Reserve)', `Vat 69', and `Black & White' Hipster [hereinafter, "the Hipster" or the "Plaintiffs' Bottles"]. Plaintiffs assert that the cumulative combination of unique, distinctive, and non-functional visual features such as shape, manner of depiction of text and label, indentations and embellishments result in a distinctive trade dress and acts as a source identifier.

5. The Hipster bottles were launched by Plaintiff No. 1 in over 180 countries in 2018, and in India in May, 2019, and met with instantaneous success.

6. Defendant is the manufacturer of alcohol through its principal brand `GOA', which was first adopted in 1999, with variants such as `GOA GOLD' and `GOA SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS'. The brand `GOA GOLD' is stated to enjoy more than

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