Delhi High Court Upholds Trademark Rights in Food and Beverage Industry
Delhi High Court Upholds Trademark Rights in Food and Beverage Industry
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of a company, restraining another company from using a deceptively similar trademark, trade dress, and bottle design for its non-alcoholic beverages.
Factual Background
The plaintiff company, engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing traditional Indian flavored non-alcoholic beverages, alleged that the defendant company was infringing its registered trademark 'LAHORI' and 'LAHORI ZEERA' by using a similar mark 'LAHOR' and 'LAHOR ZEERA' for its products.
Procedural Background
The Court considered the plaintiff's application for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointment of a Local Commissioner. The Court noted that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favor.
Issues
The primary issue before the Court was whether to grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's trademark.
Contentions of the Parties
Plaintiff: The plaintiff argued that the defendant's use of the impugned mark, trade dress, and bottle design was deceptively similar to its registered trademark and trade dress, and was likely to cause confusion among consumers.
Defendant: No contentions were reported from the defendant.
Reasoning and Analysis
The bench of Justice Tejas Karia observed that the defendant's use of the impugned mark, trade dress, and bottle design was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark and trade dress, and was likely to cause confusion among consumers. The Court relied on the judgment in Dominos IP Holder LLC v. Dominick Pizza, which held that a higher degree of care and circumspection is required in cases where the marks pertain to food products.
Implications
This judgment highlights the Court's proactive approach to protecting trademark rights and preventing infringement in the food and beverage industry.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Sagar Chandra, Mr. Nikhil Sonker and Mr. Lakshay Gunawat, Advocates.
