Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Globus Spirits Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Wild Berries Bottling Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's rights in trademark 'white lace'. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court grants ex parte injunction based on prima facie case. (Para 7) |
| 3. discussion on defendant's application and proposed new mark. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. defendant allowed to adopt new mark and mediation set. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. future court dates and procedural orders. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
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
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 good....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the grant of permanent injunction and award of damages in a trademark infringement case.
The court affirmed that copyright infringement requires substantial similarity in product packaging which may mislead consumers, justifying injunctive relief to protect trademark integrity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of trademark infringement and passing off, the court may grant a permanent injunction against the infringing party and award actual c....
It is clear that bottles are available in the market even today, with Defendant's product labels but embossed with Plaintiffs mark ‘Budweiser'. This shows that Defendant needs to take further checks ....
The court established that use of deceptively similar marks constitutes trademark infringement and warranted a permanent injunction to protect the Plaintiff's well-known mark.
Marks are considered deceptively similar if they share essential features likely to cause consumer confusion; a prima facie case for infringement justifies an injunction.
The court applied the Parle principle for comparison of competing marks and found that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark, leading to infringement and passing off.
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....
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
