2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 10778
DELHI HIGH COURT
PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
GAGAN WINE TRADE AND FINANCIERS LIMITED & ORS. – Respondent
CS(COMM)-299/2022 2023:DHC:6648
$~22
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 13thSeptember, 2023
+
CS(COMM)
299/2022
and
I.A.
7153/2022,
16007/2022,
17610/2022, 11215/2023, 16205/2023
PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Plaintiff
Through:
Mr. Hemant Singh, Mr. Sambhav
Jain, Mr. Anuraj Tirthankar & Mr.
Akhil
Saxena,
Advocates.
(M:
9958864541)
versus
GAGAN WINE TRADE AND FINANCIERS LIMITED
& ORS.
..... Defendants
Through:
Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Ms. Ekta Nayyar
Saini,
Mr.
Arnav
Chatterjee,
Mr.
Nakul
Mehta,
Advs.
(M:
9818558690)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1.
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2.
The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff-M/s Pernod Ricard
India Pvt. Ltd. seeking a permanent injunction against three Defendants
namely, Defendant No. 1-Gagan Wine Trade and Financiers Ltd., Defendant
No. 2-Green Valley Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. and Defendant No. 3-
Galestorm Distillery Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter, ‘the Defendants’). The Defendant
No. 3 is engaged in the bottling and blending of Indian Made Foreign Liquor
such as Whisky. The Defendant No. 3 was approached by the Defendants
No. 1 and 2 to manufacture and blend goods being whisky under the trade
mark/ label IMPERIAL VAT NO. 1.
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.09.2023
18:22:14
Signature Not Verified
3.
The present suit relates to the packaging, label and the overall get-up
of the Plaintiff’s product labelled ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’ whiskey.
The
Plaintiff’s case is that the Plaintiff has trademark registrations for the mark
‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, the label, the three-dimensional bottle, the packaging,
and has rights in respect of various other elements constituting the
distinctive packaging of the Plaintiff.
4.
The Plaintiff’s grievance in the present suit is that the Defendants who
are selling ‘IMPERIAL VAT NO. 1’ whiskey, have imitated the entire label,
get-up, font size, manner of writing, colour combination and placement of
elements including the shape of the bottles. The comparative features of the
Plaintiff’s product and the Defendants’ products is set out below:
COMPETING PRODUCTS
The competing trade marks, get-up and trade dress are used by both parties
for identical product namely ‘Indian whisky’
COMPETING TRADE MARKS
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.09.2023
18:22:14
Signature Not Verified
Mono-carton
Bottles
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.09.2023
18:22:14
Signature Not Verified
5.
As per the Plaintiff, the grievance was that the following features of
the two products are similar/imitative in nature. The same are mentioned
below:
(i)
The overall colour combination, comprising predominantly of a
blue label, brands written in white colour, borders and textual
material in golden colour;
(ii)
The identical manner of writing the brands with “IMPERIAL”
written in an arched-manner, and the remaining portion of the
brand written below it;
(iii)
The insignia with the crest device placed on top of the label in
golden colour, right above the depiction of the trade mark.
6.
The Plaintiff claims that it has an annual turnover of Rs.2796 crores in
the year 2020-21, and it has rights both in the mark ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, as
also in various elements forming the part of the whole product including the
label, packaging, colour combination, get up, various depicted on the said
product.
7.
The allegation in the suit is that the Defendants have deliberately
imitated the distinctive elements of the Plaintiff's packaging and products,
and hence an injunction was sought in the suit along with the damages and
other reliefs.
8.
Vide order dated 9thMay, 2022, in the present suit, after considering
the matter, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in the following
terms:
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.09.2023
18:22:14
Signature Not Verified
9.
The said order was, thereafter, clarified vide order dated 1st February,
2023 in the following terms:
that there is no injunction operating against the
defendants from using the 'IMPERI