Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Pranay Verma, JJ.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra Trading as J. K. Enterprises
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 232 of 2021 (Indore):
Decided on 3.11.2023
(1) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 – temporary injunction -- appellate Court will not interfere unless shown that trial Court acted illegally or perversely -- relief of grant of temporary injunction discretionary -- two views possible -- not sufficient to dislodge order of trial Court -- if it appears that plausible view has been taken, interference shall be declined. 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727 and (2013) 9 SCC 221 followed. [Para 15
(2) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 -- S. 13 -- Trade Marks Act, 1999 -- Ss. 28 (1) and 17 (2) -- Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 -- temporary injunction – deceptive similarity in trade mark -- allegation of plaintiffs that trade mark “London Pride” is remarkably similar to trade marks “Blenders Pride” and “Imperial Blue” -- height and colour of bottles quite different -- labels have entirely different pattern -- man of average intelligence with imperfect recollection would not be confused with identity of both bottles -- boxes in which bottles are sold also different in shape -- hologram and various other features on them cannot in any manner deceive common man or create confusion in his mind about their identity -- box of Imperial Blue whisky even more distinct from box of London Pride whisky -- word “Imperial” written in slanting manner whereas word “London” written in straight line -- arrangement of words quite dissimilar -- shape of bottles also different -- shape of mark on label also different -- overall appearance of defendant’s mark cannot be said to be deceptively similar to marks of plaintiffs -- no visual, phonetic or structural similarity between boxes or bottles -- cannot be prima facie held that defendant's mark infringes mark of plaintiffs -- plaintiffs do not possess any registration in respect of colours used in its “Imperial Blue” mark -- labels registered in full and labelled bottle as individual device marks -- any claim to exclusivity in respect of part of plaintiffs’ marks would infringe S. 17 (2) of Trade Marks Act -- no material produced by plaintiffs to show that individual elements of their registered marks, such as blue colour, golden dome, arrangement of letters on label, or even shape of bottle, have acquired secondary meaning over time, or have become associated with their marks -- as regards commonality of word “Pride”, registration is in name of “Blenders Pride” and not “Pride” -- plaintiffs could have got word “Pride” registered separately u/s. 15 of Trade Marks Act -- complete trade mark has to be used and protected as such -- its holder cannot bifurcate it on his own -- no similarity in defendant’s mark which can be said to be such imitation of plaintiffs’ trade mark which could deceive consumers of plaintiffs’ products. (1999) 7 SCC 1, (2008) 10 SCC 723, AIR 1963 SC 449, 1994 (Supp.) 3 SCC 215, (2000) 5 SCC 73 and AIR 1965 SC 980 followed. AIR 1960 SC 142, 2008 (38) PTC 49 (Del.) (DB), ILR (2009) VI Del. 399, 2010 SCC Online Del. 2933, 1994 (28) DRJ 574, 2015 SCC Online Del. 10164, 2014 SCC Online Del. 1953, 2014 SCC Online Bom. 50, AIR 1972 SC 1359, 2016 (65) PTC 132 (Mad.) (DB) and CS (Comm.) 94 of 2021 (Del.), 2007 (35) PTC 1 (SC), (2000) 5 SCC 573, (2011) 4 SCC 85, 2018 SCC Online Del. 9794, 1983 SCC Online Del. 276, PTC (Suppl.) (1) 615 (Del.), (2016) 2 SCC 672, (2006) 5 SCC 282, (2006) 8 SCC 726, (2012) 6 SCC 792, (2006) 6 SCC 366, AIR 1940 PC 230 and Cipla (2007) SCC Online Del. 2012 referred to. [Paras 17 to 22 & 27
(3) Trade Mark -- protection of trade mark -- available only for complete trade mark, not any word therein -- unless same is registered as whole as well as in part as separate trade mark. [Para 22
(4) Trade Mark -- test of deceptive similarity -- different in each case -- would depend upon nature and kind of customers likely to buy those goods. [Para 24
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 39 fu- 1 ,oa 2 & vLFkk;h O;kns'k & vihy U;k;ky; rc rd gLr{ksi ugha djsxk tc rd ;g ugha n'kkZ;k tkrk fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; us voS/krk ls ;k foi;ZLrrk ls dk;Z fd;k & vLFkk;h O;kns'k ds çnku dk vuqrks"k oSosfdd gS & nks –f"Vdks.k laHko & fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vkns'k L[kfyr djus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha & ;fn çrhr gksrk gS fd laHkkO; n`f"Vdks.k viuk;k x;k gS] rks gLr{ksi ls bUdkj fd;k tk,xkA 1990 ¼lIyh-½ ,l lh lh 727 rFkk ¼2013½ 9 ,l lh lh 221 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15½
¼2½ okf.kfT;d U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e] 2015 & /kkjk 13 & O;kikj fpUg vfèkfu;e] 1999 & /kkjk 28¼1½ rFkk 17¼2½ & flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 39 fu- 1 ,oa 2 & vLFkk;h O;kns'k & O;kikj fpUg esa bruh le:irk ftlls /kks[kk gks tk, & oknhx.k dk vfHkdFku fd O;kikj fpUg ÞyaMu çkbMß mYys[kuh; :i ls O;kikj fpUg ÞCySaMlZ çkbMß vkSj Þbaihfj;y Cywß ds le:i gS & cksryksa dh Å¡pkbZ vkSj jax i;kZIrr% fHkUu & yscyksa dk Lo:i Hkh iw.kZr% fHkUu & viw.kZ Lej.k okyk vkSlr cqf) dk O;fä nksuksa cksryksa dh igpku ds ckjs esa Hkzfer ugha gksxk & ftu fMCcksa esa cksrysa foØ; dh tkrh gSa mudk Hkh vkdkj fHkUu & muds g‚yksxzke rFkk vU; vusd oSf'k"V~; vke O;fä dks fdlh çdkj dk /kks[kk ugha ns ldrs vFkok mlds eu esa mudh igpku ds ckjs esa dksbZ Hkze mRiUu ugha dj ldrs & baihfj;y Cyw foLdh dk fMCck yaMu çkbM foLdh ds fMCcs ls vkSj Hkh vf/kd lqfHkUu & 'kCn Þbaihfj;yß frjNk fy[kk gqvk tcfd 'kCn ÞyaMuß lh/kh js[kk esa fyf[kr & 'kCnksa dk foU;kl i;kZIrr% vle:i & cksryksa dk vkdkj Hkh fHkUu & yscy ij fpUg dk vkdkj Hkh fHkUu & çfroknh ds fpUg dk dqy :i-jax bruk le:i ugha dgk tk ldrk ftlls oknhx.k ds fpUgksa dk /kks[kk gks tk, & fMCcksa ;k cksryksa esa dksbZ n`"VkRed /oU;kRed ;k lajpukRed le:irk ugha & çFke–"Vîk vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd çfroknh ds fpUg ls oknhx.k ds fpUg dk vfrya?ku gksrk gS & oknhx.k ds ikl vius Þbaihfj;y Cywß fpUg esa mi;ksx fd, x, jaxksa ds lacaèk esa dksbZ jftLVªhdj.k ugha & yscy lexz:is.k jftLVªh—r rFkk yscy;qä cksrysa vyx&vyx vk—fr fpUgksa ds :i esa & oknhx.k ds fpUgksa ds fdlh Hkkx ds laca/k esa vuU;rk ds fdlh Hkh nkos ls O;kikj fpUg vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 ¼2½ dk vfrya?ku gksxk & oknhx.k }kjk ;g nf'kZr djus ds fy, dksbZ lkexzh çLrqr ugha dh xbZ fd muds jftLVªhÑr fpUgksa ds vyx&vyx rRoksa us] tSls uhyk jax Lof.kZe xqacn] yscy ij v{kjksa dk foU;kl] ;k fQj cksry dk vkdkj Hkh] le; ds lkFk f}rh;d vFkZ vftZr dj fy;k gS ;k muds fpUgksa ls lac) gks x, gSa & tgka rd 'kCn ÞçkbMß dh lekurk dk lacaèk gS] jftLVªhdj.k ÞCySaMlZ çkbMß uke dk gS] ÞçkbMß dk ugha & oknhx.k i`Fkd~ ls O;kikj fpUg vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 15 ds v/khu 'kCn ÞçkbMß jftLVªh—r djk ldrs Fks & laiw.kZ O;kikj fpUg dk mi;ksx fd;k tkuk gksrk gS rFkk blh çdkj lajf{kr fd;k tkuk gksrk gS & mldk /kkjd mls Lo;a nks esa foHkkftr ugha dj ldrk & çfroknh ds fpUg esa ,slh dksbZ le:irk ugha ftls oknhx.k ds O;kikj fpUg dh ,slh udy dgk tk lds ftlls oknhx.k ds mRiknksa ds miHkksäkvksa dks /kks[kk gks ldsA ¼1999½ 7 ,l lh lh 1] ¼2008½ 10 ,l lh lh 723] , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 449] 1994 ¼lIyh-½ 3 ,l lh lh 215] ¼2000½ 5 ,l lh lh 73 rFkk , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 980 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1960 ,l lh 142] 2008 ¼38½ ih Vh lh 49 ¼fnYyh½ ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ ,y vkj ¼2009½ 6 fnYyh 399] 2010 ,l lh lh v‚uykbu fnYyh 2933] 1994 ¼28½ Mh vkj ts 574- ¼2015½ ,l lh lh v‚uykbu fnYyh 10164] 2014 ,l lh lh v‚uykbu fnYyh 1953] 2014 ,l lh lh v‚uykbu cacbZ 50- , vkb vkj 1972 ,l lh 1359] 2016 ¼65½ ih Vh lh 132 ¼eækl½ ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ rFkk lh,l ¼Øe-½ 94 lu~ 2021 ¼fnYyh½] 2007 ¼35½ ih Vh lh 1 ¼,l lh½] ¼2000½ 5 ,l lh lh 573] ¼2011½ 4 ,l lh lh 85] 2018 ,l lh lh v‚uykbu fnYyh 9794- 1983 ,l lh lh v‚uykbu fnYyh 276] ih Vh lh ¼lIyh-½ ¼1½ 615 ¼fnYyh½] ¼2016½ 2 ,l lh lh 672] ¼2006½ 5 ,l lh lh 282] ¼2006½ 8 ,l lh lh 726] ¼2012½ 6 ,l lh lh 792] ¼2006½ 6 ,l lh lh 366- , vkb vkj 1940 ih lh 230 rFkk ¼2007½ ,l lh lh v‚uykbu fnYyh 2012 fufnZ"VA
¼iSjk 17 ls 22 ,oa 27½
¼3½ O;kikj fpUg & O;kikj fpUg dk laj{k.k & laiw.kZ O;kikj fpUg ds fy, gh miyC/k gksrk gS] mlds fdlh 'kCn ds fy, ugha & tc rd fd og laiw.kZ ds lkFk-lkFk Hkkxr% Hkh i`Fkd~ O;kikj fpUg ds :i esa jftLVªh—r ugha gksA ¼iSjk 22½
¼4½ O;kikj fpUg & bruh le:irk ftlls /kks[kk gks tk, dk ijh{k.k & çR;sd ekeys esa fHkUu & mu Øsrkvksa dh ç—fr vkSj çdkj ij fuHkZj djsxk ftuds }kjk og eky Ø; fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gSA ¼iSjk 24½
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the order dated 26.11.2020 passed by the Commercial Court, Indore, whereby their application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for issuance of temporary injunction has been rejected.
2. As per the plaintiffs, they are in business of manufacturing and distribution of wines, liquors and spirits. They are manufacturing and selling whisky in the name of ‘Blenders Pride’ and ‘Imperial Blue’. They have registered trade mark in respect of them and also have such registered trade mark in respect of Seagram’s which is the house mark of plaintiff No.1 and which is used in India and Internationally and which appears on their products sold under various brands. The defendant has imitated the aforesaid trade mark of plaintiffs and is manufacturing and selling its whisky under the trade mark ‘London Pride’. The trade mark of plaintiffs namely; Blenders Pride was adopted in 1973 and was registered in favour of Seagram’s Company Limited. The plaintiffs have become proprietors of the said trade mark in India with effect from 27.6.2018. Blenders Pride is marketed with a distinctive label and Seagram’s logo.
3. Further case of plaintiffs is that Pride is the most essential and distinctive component of their mark ‘Blenders Pride’ which they have been using since 1995. The same has distinctive features and has acquired considerable goodwill and reputation in India. They are also using another mark ‘Imperial Blue’ since 1997 and are selling whisky under the same in distinctive label, packaging and trade dress. The same has also acquired goodwill and reputation. The plaintiffs have obtained registration in respect of their trademark in Class -33. Likewise, the trade mark ‘Seagram’s’ is a registered trade mark of plaintiff No.2 of Class-33. The defendant is imitating all the aforesaid trades marks of plaintiffs and has filed a Trade Marks application of a trade mark London Pride in class-33 which has been objected to by plaintiffs. The plaintiffs acquired knowledge that defendant is selling London Pride whisky which is deceptively similar to its Blenders Pride trade mark. The whiskey of defendant is being sold by putting label, using packaging, getup and trade dress deceptively similar to Imperial Blue. Their bottles bear the trade mark Seagram’s. Plaintiffs are the prior users of all their trade marks and their products are having enormous sale in the country. The defendant by using the label London Pride and with the manner of its packaging, getup and trade dress is practicing misrepresentation and fraud to deceive the customers. It is impinging upon the trade mark, goodwill and reputation of plaintiff’s trademarks and is deriving illegal benefits by doing the same which is causing enormous monitory loss, injury and damage to plaintiffs.
4. Contending aforesaid, the plaintiffs have instituted an action before the trial Court intra alia seeking the following reliefs :--
“ 38. In the aforesaid premises, and in the interest of justice, the Plaintiffs most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant the following reliefs;
(i) a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its proprietors, partners as the case may be, assigns in business, sister concerns, associates, agents, dealers, distributors, stockists etc. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising in any manner including on the internet, directly or indirectly dealing in whisky or any alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages under the trade mark LONDON PRIDE and/or label and/or packaging and/or any other label/packaging and/or trade mark that may be identical/deceptively similar to IMPERIAL BLUE label or packaging and/or deceptively similar to the trade mark BLENDERS RIDE and/or SEAGRAM'S amounting to infringement of Plaintiffs? registered trade marks a
Generic and descriptive terms in trademarks cannot be exclusively claimed, and likelihood of confusion must be assessed holistically from the average consumer's perspective.
Intellectual Property - In any case, in view of Section 17(2) (b) of Trademarks Act, plaintiffs cannot register the mark WOOD. It was stressed that under Section 17, where a trade mark consists of se....
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....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that registration under the Copyright Act and Excise Act does not permit infringement of a registered trade mark. The significance of disclaimer in....
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
