The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Interim Application (L) No. 32380 OF 2024 in Commercial IPR Suit (L) NO. 32031 OF 2024 (Order dated October 24, 2024) held that use of a deceptively similar trademark and artistic work amounts to infringement of registered trademark and copyright, warranting immediate injunctive relief.
Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner, Reliance Retail Limited, is an Indian retail company incorporated in 1999 and a group company of Fortune 500 company Reliance Industries Limited. As the largest retailer in India by revenue, the Petitioner has been engaged in providing retail services across various segments including grocery, consumer electronics, fashion & lifestyle, and pharma products for the past two and a half decades.
The history of the CAMPA trademark dates back to 1972 when Campa Beverages Private Limited adopted it in their corporate name. In September 1977, Campa Beverages along with Pure Drinks New Delhi Limited commenced use of the 'CAMPA' trademark, with Campa Beverages soon becoming the market leader in India's soft drinks segment. Through a Deed of Assignment dated August 17, 1983, Pure Drinks assigned all CAMPA marks to Campa Beverages. Subsequently, via another Deed of Assignment dated August 30, 2022, Campa Beverages assigned the 'CAMPA' trademark, copyrighted works, and artistic works to the Petitioner.
The Petitioner has invested significantly in the brand's relaunch, spending approximately Rs.35,00,00,000 on advertising and promotional expenses in FY 2023 and Rs.75,00,00,000 in FY 2024 (until June). The Petitioner received trademark registration for their device mark on December 8, 2022, and subsequently adopted color variations based on beverage flavors. The brand's relaunch under the Reliance group has involved extensive promotional campaigns, advertising, and social media initiatives.
Upon discovering the Respondents' unauthorized use of the 'JHAMPA' trademark, trade dress, and logo, the Petitioner issued a Cease and Desist Notice on August 23, 2024. The Respondents refused to comply in their reply dated August 29, 2024, claiming 'Jhampa' was their village name. Subsequently, on September 5, 2024, the Respondents filed word mark and device mark applications under Nos. 6610364 and 6610363 for the 'JHAMPA' trademark, claiming use since August 1, 2024.
Issues:
1. Whether the Respondents' use of 'JHAMPA' trademark and associated artistic works amounts to infringement of the Petitioner's registered trademark 'CAMPA' and copyright?
2. Whether interim injunction should be granted to protect the Petitioner's intellectual property rights?
Held by the Court:
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Interim Application (L) No. 32380 OF 2024 held that:
The Court observed that prima facie, the Petitioner has established rightful ownership of the CAMPA marks and artistic works through valid assignment deeds, with registrations dating back to 1977. The Court noted the substantial goodwill and reputation acquired by the CAMPA marks, evidenced by significant investment in promotion and widespread market recognition.
The Court held that the impugned trademark "JHAMPA" demonstrates clear infringement, being visually, phonetically, and structurally deceptively similar to the registered CAMPA trademark. The Court particularly emphasized that merely substituting the letter "C" with "JH" does not create sufficient distinctiveness, especially when used for identical goods in the same market segment.
The Court opined that the Respondents' conduct demonstrated clear dishonesty, noting that they filed trademark applications only after receiving the cease and desist notice. The Court rejected their defense that 'Jhampa' was their village name, observing that this explanation was contradicted by their own attempt to claim monopoly over the word through trademark application No. 6610364 in Class 32.
The Court determined that the impugned artistic works constituted a reproduction of the Petitioner's registered artistic works and/or substantial parts thereof. Notably, the Court found that the Respondents had replicated not just the word mark but also various color combinations used by the Petitioner for different beverage flavors, further evidencing intentional copying.
Based on these findings, and following the settled principle that blatant intellectual property rights violations require prompt injunctive relief to protect both the rights holder and public interest, the Court granted ad-interim reliefs under prayer clauses (a) and (c), comprehensively restraining the Respondents from using the impugned trademark and artistic works in any form or manner.
Relevant Sections:
- Clause XIV of the Letters of Patent (Bombay)
- Trade Marks Act, 1999
- Copyright Act, 1957
Cases Referred:
The judgment does not explicitly cite any previous cases, though it mentions "settled principle of law in matters of blatant violation of intellectual property rights" requiring prompt injunctive relief to protect both the Plaintiff's interests and public interest at large.
________________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and NLF Tax and Legal Advisory. The contents of this article are solely for informational purposes and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or a recommendation of the firm. Neither the author nor the firm and its affiliates accept any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing, and we reserve the legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission
Comentarios