IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, ALOK JAIN, JJ.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
United Spirits Limited – Respondent
FAO-COM NO. 2 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-03-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and appeal origin. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background of trademark registration and disputes. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. appellant's claims for injunction and trademark infringement. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. appellant's arguments on goodwill and market impact. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. legal standards for assessing deceptive similarity. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. importance of independent trademark registration. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. respondent's defense and arguments against infringement. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. legal provisions regarding trademark registration and rights. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. argument concerning maintainability and procedural issues. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 10. discussion on appellant's burden of proof for trademark rights. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 11. final arguments stressing absence of confusion and market impact. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 12. court's considerations for granting injunctive relief. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 13. court’s conclusion on the merits of the infringement claim. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 14. dismissal of the appeal and conclusion on the application. (Para 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Alok Jain, J.
The present appeal arises out of the order dated 17.01.2022, whereby, the learned Court below has dismissed the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, filed by the appellant, inter alia, praying for restraining the defendants from infringing the trademark "Blenders Pride" by using, manufacturing and selling the goods under the alleged Trademark "Royal Challenger American Pride".
2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by learned Senior counsel for the appellant, are that the Trademark "Blenders Pride" was adopted by the predecessor of the appellant-Company namely, the Seagrams Company Limited in the year 1973, for which it had obtained registration of the Trade Mark "Blenders Pride" vide Trademark Registration No.623365 in Clause 33, which relates to and deals in respect of wines, spirits and liquors. The said registration was dated 25.03.1994 and, thereafter, the predecessor of the appellant-Company launched a whiskey under the Trademark "Blenders Pride" in India.
3. Cutting short the long history of success of the said product in the market, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that by the year 2019, the appellant-Company was generating annual sales of X 1770 crores per annum, however, in the year 2019, the respondent United Spirits Limited (USL) filed an application No.4300764 seeking registration of the Trademark "Challenger American Pride" for the goods falling under Classes 32 and 33. Thereafter, the respondent applied for the approval of the label with the competent authorities at Mohali in Punjab and the appellants, coming to know about it, immediately filed their objections. In furtherance to protect their Trademark, the appellants also filed an application for cancellation of the Trademark Registration No.4300764 on 06.11.2020. Taking further steps to protect their rights, the appellants filed a suit before the Commercial Court, Mohali, inter alia, praying for:-
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta AIR 1963 SC 449
Austin Nichols and Co. Inc. v. Arvind Behl 2006 (32) PTC 133 (Del)
Best Seller Retail (India) Private Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 792
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1999) 7 SCC 1
Con Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. AIR 1960 SC 142
Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) 2 SCC 117
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks
Heinz Italia v. Dabur India Ltd. 2007 (35) PTC 1 SC
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories AIR 1965 SC 980
Kewal Krishan Kumar v. Rudi Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. 2007 (21) RCR(Civ) 669
Khoday Distelleries Ltd. v. Scotch Whiskey Association (2008) 10 SCC 723
Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhat Shah
Metro Marins v. Bonus Watch Co. (P) Ltd. (2004) 7 SCC 478
Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan
Narendra Hirawat and Co. v. Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (2) RCR(Civ) 531
Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd. 2008 (38) PTC 49 (Del) (DB)
Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2016 (65) PTC 132 (Mad) (DB)
Ruston and Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. 1969 (2) SCC 727
The court emphasized likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark law, holding that similar marks can infringe established trademarks regardless of differences in service or field, thus supporting t....
Generic and descriptive terms in trademarks cannot be exclusively claimed, and likelihood of confusion must be assessed holistically from the average consumer's perspective.
Important Point :The use of a trademark that is phonetically and visually similar to a registered trademark can lead to confusion, constituting infringement, especially when dishonest conduct is evid....
Point of Law : Section 27 of Trade Marks Act provides that no action for infringement will lie in respect of an unregistered trade mark.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.