The court upheld the plaintiff's trademark rights over 'WHITE LACE' and granted a permanent injunction against the defendant's use of similar marks due to likelihood of confusion and established goodwill.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the infringement of trademark, design, and copyright, passing off, damages, delivery up, and other reliefs. The Plaintiff-M/s. Globus Spirits Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacture, marketing and sale of industry alcohol comprising rectified spirit and extra-neutral alcohol country liquor and Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), such as whisky, brandy, rum, gin, vodka, wine, etc. The Plaintiff has a brand portfolio of its own in the country liquor segment such as `WHITE LACE' Gin, `WHITE LACE' Vodka, etc.

3. The case of the Plaintiff is that it has coined and adopted the mark `WHITE LACE' for gin in the year 2000. The said mark was also adopted for its vodka products in the year 2019. The Plaintiff is stated to be selling its goods bearing the mark `WHITE LACE' in Delhi, Haryana and Rajasthan. On account of the long, continuous and extensive use of the trade mark `WHITE LACE' in relation to alcoholic beverages, it is submitted that the Plaintiff has attained immense goodwill and reputation for its mark `WHITE LACE'. In the year 2021-22, the Plaintiff is stated to have sold 94,050 cases of 750 ml. liquor and 25,81,102 cases of 180 ml. liquor. The Plaintiff has also obtained various registrations in respect of the trademark/label `WHITE LACE' without and in conjunction with other words. The details of the said registrations have been set out in the Plaint.

4. The Plaintiff claims rights in the distinctive label for its products branded under the mark `WHITE LACE'. The said label has been set out below:

5. On the other hand, the Defendant - Wild Berries Bottling Pvt. Limited is engaged in the identical business of marketing and sale of alcoholic beverages. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant has been selling its identical products under the impugned marks `WILD LAKE' and `WHITE LACE' which are identical and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered mark `WHITE LACE'. The Defendant's impugned product label is depicted below:

6. The Defendant applied for the mark `WHITE LACE', vide Trademark Application No.4960980 in Class 33, in respect of "Alcoholic beverages (except beer) being Goods included in Class 33" on a `proposed-to-be-used basis'. The said application has been opposed. The Defendant further applied for the mark `WILD LAKE', vide Trademark Application No.4979638 in Class 33, in respect of "Alcoholic beverages (except beer) being Goods included in Class 33" on a `proposed-to-be-used basis'. The said application has also been opposed by the Plaintiff.

7. Vide order dated 15th June, 2022, an ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted in the present suit. On the said date, a Local Commissioner was also appointed to visit the premises of the Defendant. The relevant portion of the order dated 15th June, 2022 is set out below:

"24. Having heard learned counsel for the Plaintiff, this Court is of the view that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.

25. Accordingly, Defendant, its officers, servants, agents, dealers, distributors and all other are restrained from manufacturing, exporting, selling, offering for sale, exhibiting, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in goods bearing the trademarks WILD LACE and WILD LAKE or from do