*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Pronounced on: 02^nd August, 2022

+

CS(COMM) 87/2021

DIAGEO BRANDS B.V. & ANR.

..... Plaintiffs

Through:

Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Nitin Sharma, Ms. Savni D.

Endlaw, Ms. Subhoshree Sil, Mr.

Angad S. Makkar and Mr. Saksham

Dhingra, Advocates.

versus

GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LIMITED

..... Defendant

Through:

Mr. Chander Lall, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms.

Deepika Pokharia and Mr. Kshitiz

Dua, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

JUDGMENT

CONTENTS

I.

BRIEF FACTS ............................................................................................................ 3

II.

ARGUMENTS BY THE PLAINTIFFS (IN BRIEF) ........................................................... 6

III. ARGUMENTS BY THE DEFENDANT (IN BRIEF) ......................................................... 7

IV. REJOINDER ARGUMENTS BY PLAINTIFFS ............................................................... 12

V. ISSUES &ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 13

1.Who is the proprietor of the Registered Design? ...................................... 15

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002937

2.What is the legal effect of registration of a design for deciding the relief of

grant of injunction? ...................................................................................... 17

3.Has a prima facie case been established to show fraudulent and obvious

imitation of the Plaintiffs’ Registered design, so as to warrant an

injunction? .................................................................................................... 20

4.Has the Defendant demonstrated any ground of challenge enumerated

under Section 19 of the Act, and if so, what is its effect? .......................... 28

A.

Whether the Plaintiffs’ Registered Design is liable to be cancelled on

the ground of not being a new or original design due to existence of

prior art. .............................................................................................. 30

B.

Whether the Plaintiffs’ Registered Design is liable to be cancelled on

the ground of mosaicing. .................................................................... 41

C.

Whether the Plaintiffs’ Registered Design is liable to be cancelled on

the ground that it is functional in nature. ............................................ 44

5.Is there similarity in the trade-dress/ get-up, constituting passing-off, and

if so, can an injunction can be granted on that ground? .......................... 47

VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS......................................................................................... 53

I.A. 2608/2021 (application by Plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of

1. The Plaintiffs who claim to have spent millions to develop a “new” 180

ml liquor bottle design – marketed as the “Hipster bottle” – are aggrieved with

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002937

its lock, stock and barrel copying by the Defendant; who, on the other hand,

labels both the Plaintiffs and itself as pirates, sailing in the same high seas of

prior art(s).

I.

BRIEFFACTS

2. Plaintiffs are part of the Diageo group of companies, involved in the

business of manufacturing, selling, distributing and marketing of inter alia

alcoholic beverages. Plaintiff No. 1 [Diageo Brands B.V.] is the proprietor of

the marks ‘Vat 69’ and ‘Black & White’, including their formative marks,

logos, device marks, labels and trade dress. Plaintiff No. 2 [United Spirits

Ltd.] is the Indian distributor of Plaintiff No. 1’s brands viz. ‘Vat 69’ and

‘Black & White’, and also manufactures, sells, distributes and markets its

own brand i.e., ‘Black Dog’, being the proprietor of its formative marks,

logos, device marks, labels and the trade dress.

3. Plaintiff No. 1 is the proprietor