Pepsico Inc. & Anr. vs Jagpin Breweries Limited & Anr. On 1 May 2023, It is crucial to include the customary disclaimer that the Court’s opinions and observations are merely preliminary and tentative and will not affect how the case is ultimately decided.
Facts:
The plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit in an effort to prevent the defendants from using the trademark “MIRINDA” by themselves, as well as their agents, representatives, servants, men, distributors, and anyone else acting in concert with them, on their behalf, or claiming to be them in any other way. It is digitally signed by Kamal Kumar. Date of Signature: 05.06.2023 15:26:54 Number of Neutral Citations: 2023:DHC:2945 any deceptive variation thereof in relation to their product, country-made spirits, or in relation to any other commercial activity in a way that violates Plaintiff No. 1’s statutory and common law rights in its registered and well-known trademarks. According to the claim, the MIRINDA trademark was originally used in relation to fruit-flavored non-carbonated beverages in 1959 in Spain and has since been utilised for more than 60 years by Plaintiff No. 1 and/or its predecessors-in-title. Products bearing the MIRINDA marks have been sold in India since 1996, and Plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of various registrations, the earliest of which dates from 1997. Plaintiff No. 1 or its subsidiaries have “applied” for or registered MIRINDA marks as trademarks in roughly 190 nations throughout the world, including the USA, Australia, Canada, Egypt, Germany, etc. Learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs argued that Plaintiff No. 1’s MIRINDA marks are registered trademarks and that as a result, under the terms of Section 28(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), Plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to their exclusive use in connection with the goods for which the trademarks are registered as well as the right to seek redress for trademark infringement in the ways specified by the Act. It was argued that it is well-established legal precedent that transliteration of a registered mark is unlawful since it misleads customers. The rulings in Bhatia Plastics v. Peacock Industries Ltd. were relied upon. The burden of proof is with the defendants to demonstrate that the plaintiffs took some affirmative action by allowing the other party to infringe their rights and spend money doing so. The defendants have failed to establish a case of acquiescence against the plaintiffs. Acquiescence therefore demands action, not just inaction or quiet. Jolen Inc. v. Doctor & Company, 2002 SCC OnLine Del 518 and M/s. Power Control Appliances and Others v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 448 were used as sources. Even if the defendants’ claim of usage from 2007 is allowed, evidence in the record would demonstrate that the plaintiffs were earlier users than the defendants, as is clear from several articles published in 1999, 2002, and 2005. Additionally, the plaintiffs have registered MIRINDA formative domain names in the.com,.co.in, and.in extensions. The domain name “mirinda.com” was established on October 23, 1998, while “mirinda.co.in” and “mirinda.in” were established on February 16, 2005, respectively. recognised mark and/or variations thereof, such as (MIRINDA Marks), in addition to misrepresenting their goods.
Held:
The Court distinguished the decision on the grounds that, in cases involving distinct products, the likelihood of success for the prior owner depends on a number of factors, including the strength of his mark, the degree of similarity, etc. In the current case, the reputation of the MIRINDA marks is an additional and important factor, setting it apart from the facts of the cases of Nandhini Deluxe (supra) and Vishnudas Trading (supra). The Plaintiffs’ argument that the Defendants are not required to sell alcohol bearing the trademark “Rajshree Mirinda Masala” under the terms of the contract that the Excise Department awarded to them for the Financial Year 2022–2023 is also supported by the Court. The Letter of Award dated 30.03.2022, which is supported by the Notice Inviting Tender dated 15.03.2022, demonstrates that the tender is brand-neutral and that the only condition is the delivery of plain and masala country spirits under labels that are properly registered with the Excise Department. Additionally, there is at least some truth to the claim that the defendants have a digitally signed from KAMAL KUMAR Date of Signature: 05.06.2023 15:26:54 Label registration for masala country spirits as “Desi Madira Masala Prince Orange” is neutrally cited as Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:2945 and can be utilised to meet the tender’s demand. As a result, the main complaint and justification offered by the Defendants in the application for the vacation of the ex parte injunction is completely unfounded. The ex parte ad interim order dated 06.05.2022, which is digitally signed by Kamal Kumar, is made final for the aforementioned reasons. Date of Signature: 05.06.2023 15:26:54 Number of Neutral Citations: 2023:DHC:2945 Defendants are prohibited from using the trademark “MIRINDA,” or a transliteration of it, by themselves, their agents, representatives, servants, men, distributors, and anyone else operating in conjunction with them, on their behalf, suing under or through them or in any other way.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment Reviewed by Kushala Simha
