The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Tiger Aspect Kids & Family Limited v. Mr. Bean Trampoline Park / Mr. Been Trampoline Park, Interim Application (L) No. 8001 of 2024 in Commercial IP (L) No. 7983 of 2023, dated March 27, 2024, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing the Plaintiff's registered trademarks, copyrights, and from passing off its goods and services as that of the Plaintiff in relation to the "MR. BEAN" brand and associated artwork/character.
Facts of the Case:
The Plaintiff, Tiger Aspect Kids & Family Limited, is part of the renowned Banijay Group of companies headquartered in Paris, France. The Banijay Group is a leading global media and entertainment company with over 130 production companies across 21 countries and a content catalogue of over 180,000 hours of original premium content. The Plaintiff claims to own all rights in the popular comedy series "MR. BEAN," which was first broadcasted in January 1990.
Following the success of the original series, an animated series named "Mr. Bean" was produced and released in 2002, featuring an animated character based on the appearance, attributes, and mannerisms of Mr. Bean, played by actor Rowan Atkinson. On July 2, 2020, the Banijay Group acquired the Endemol Shine Group, and subsequently, the Plaintiff acquired the entire UK Kids and Family television production business from Tiger Aspect Productions Limited (TAPL). Through an Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 3, 2021, the Plaintiff acquired all rights, title, and interest, including merchandising rights, in the "MR. BEAN" works, trademarks, and Mr. Bean artwork/device/character from TAPL.
The Plaintiff has been broadcasting and using the "MR. BEAN" works and merchandise on various channels and OTT/online platforms globally, including in India. In June 2023, the Plaintiff learned that the Defendant was operating a trampoline park bearing the trade name/trademark "Mr. Bean Trampoline Park" and using an impugned work deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's Mr. Bean artwork/device/character. The Plaintiff sent cease and desist notices to the Defendant on June 6, 2023, and July 10, 2023. The Defendant failed to respond but took down its website hosted on the impugned domain name.
In December 2023, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's trademark application No. 5684950 filed on November 16, 2022, for a device mark similar to the Plaintiff's Mr. Bean artwork/device/character. The Plaintiff filed a Notice of Opposition against this application. In February 2024, the Plaintiff's representative found that the Defendant's trampoline park was themed around the character of "MR BEAN" and associated features from the Plaintiff's works, misrepresenting an association or endorsement by the Plaintiff. The Defendant was also operating a café, restaurant, and selling merchandise bearing the impugned marks.
After filing the present suit, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant had started operating another website with a deceptively similar domain name, changing the park's name from "MR. BEAN TRAMPOLINE PARK" to "MR. BEEN TRAMPOLINE PARK." The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's use of the Impugned Marks, which are identical and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark "MR. BEAN," infringes the Plaintiff's rights in the mark 'MR.BEAN'.
Issue:
Whether the Defendant should be restrained from infringing the Plaintiff's registered trademarks, copyrights, and from passing off its goods and services as that of the Plaintiff in relation to the "MR. BEAN" brand and associated artwork/character?
Held by the Court:
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Interim Application (L) No. 8001 of 2024 in Commercial IP (L) No. 7983 of 2023 held that:
The Court observed that this was a perfect case of false endorsement, where the impression given to consumers was that the Defendant's trampoline park was authorized or an official theme park of the Plaintiff, which was not the case. It held that the Defendant continued to use the Impugned Marks despite being put on notice, and its dishonest intention was evident. The Court opined that the Plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case, and the balance of convenience was in its favor.
The Court held that if the relief was not granted in favor of the Plaintiff, grave and irreparable harm and loss would be caused, which could not be compensated in terms of money. It further observed that if the Defendant was not restrained by a temporary injunction, it would continue with its nefarious activities resulting in uncalculated losses, which may not be capable of being compensated in terms of money.
The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff, restraining the Defendant, its directors, proprietors, partners, managers, servants, agents, stockists, dealers, distributors, and all persons acting on its behalf from infringing the Plaintiff's registered Trade Marks bearing registration Nos. 2677168 and 2103820, by using the Impugned Marks or any other trademark/device/work identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's Trade Mark in any manner whatsoever. It also restrained the Defendant from infringing the Plaintiff's copyright in the Mr. Bean Artwork/Device/Character by reproducing in any material form or communicating to the public the Impugned Works or any other label/trade dress/packaging/artistic work which is a reproduction of the Plaintiff's Mr. Bean Artwork/Device/Character.
The Court further held that the Defendant should be restrained from manufacturing, selling, advertising, distributing, marketing, exhibiting for sale, or otherwise conducting any business and/or commercial activities using the Impugned Marks or any mark containing the words 'Mr. Bean' / 'Mr. Been' and/or any other trademark/artwork/character deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's well-known registered Trade Mark and Mr. Bean Artwork/Device/Character, so as to pass off its Impugned Goods and Services as that of the Plaintiff.
The Court granted liberty to the Plaintiff to renew its application for further reliefs after giving notice to the Defendant, and liberty to the Defendant to apply for variation of the order with 48 hours' notice to the Plaintiff's Advocate. It ordered that the ex-parte ad-interim reliefs were to continue until June 14, 2024, when the Application was listed for further orders. The Court also directed the Plaintiff to comply with Order 39, Rule 3 within two working days of uploading of the order.
Mr. Bean trademark infringement case
_________________________________________________________
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
Comments