Copywrite and trade mark infrigments case law, Lecture notes of Intellectual Property (IP)

Download Copywrite and trade mark infrigments case law and more Lecture notes Intellectual Property (IP) in PDF only on Docsity! Infringement of trademark - Case Analysis- Coca-Cola Co. vs. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd., [Manu/DE/2698/2009] -17 th November, 2020 -By Sachin Sagar S J, 5TH Year B.A. LL.B. Sheshadripuram Law College, Bangalore. CASE DETAILS Name of the Case: The Coca-Cola Company vs. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. Name of the Court: High Court of Delhi Bench: Justice Manmohan Singh Plaintiff: The Coca Cola Company Defendant: Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. Date of Judgement: 20/10/2009 In the history of IPR in India the case between the two giants of the Beverage Industry of India the Coca-Cola Company and Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. and Others is a landmark judgment which is very popularly called as the „Maaza War’. This case deals with the infringement of trademark and the dispute was over the rights of the trademark of the brand name „Maaza‟. Trademark is a unique symbol or word(s) used to represent a business or its products. Once registered, that same symbol or series of words cannot be used by any other organization, forever, as the definition explains what trademark is, this case has an explanation to 4. As per the plaintiff, the notice claimed that the plaintiff had breached the said agreement by attempting to register MAAZA in Turkey as the agreements/assignments between the parties allowed the plaintiff to use MAAZA in India alone. 5. To this, the plaintiff brought a suit asking for permanent injunction and damages for passing off and revoking the irrevocable agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Also the plaintiff accused the defendant of unauthorized manufacturing of some particular ingredients of Maaza base by some third party in India. On this basis plaintiff alleged that the defendant is violating the exclusive right of usage of it‟s legally registered trademark. Does the Delhi High Court have jurisdiction, in this case, to deal with the matter? The Issue before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court was, whether exporting a product with the mark is considered as infringement in the exporting country. Plaintiff raised the following issues:  The Plaintiff sued for permanent injunction to refrain the 0Defendant and other related parties from infringing on the Trade Mark.  The plaintiff asked for damages for passing off by the defendants.  The plaintiff Contended that the defendant ignored the terms of the deed of assignment pertaining the total transfer and assignment of IPR, trademarks to the plaintiff.  The Plaintiff argued that they have the sale and exclusive usage rights to the trademark to the exclusion of others within and outside India. The Defendants raised the following issues:  The Defendants contended that the plaintiff was only authorized to use the trademark, IPR in Indian and not outside India. The Delhi High court had the territorial jurisdiction over the matter, because the defendant had issued a news article in Delhi edition of Times of India, and the reports itself created the jurisdiction of the court. Also, the defendant had a factory at Shivaji Marg in New Delhi and the threat was also given as notice from New Delhi itself. . With reference to Section 41(h) and (l) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the suit cannot be barred as there existed a determinable contract between the two parties and thus, the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction in order to enforce their exclusive rights The defendant company is not entitled to use the trademark “MAAZA” under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1962. The Section deals with injunction to perform negative agreement and says that the plaintiff will be entitled to the injunction if they had performed their part of the contract as was binding on them. 1. The plaintiff contended that the deed of terms with respect to assignment of IPR, trademarks, know-how and formulae was ignored by the defendant. 2. The plaintiff also argued that they had exclusive usage and rights to the trademark in as well as outside the country. 1. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was solely authorized to use IPR, Know-how and trademark within India and not outside of it. . It was argued on behalf of the Plaintiff that as the mark „Maaza‟ with regard to Indian market was assigned to Coca-Cola, any manufacture of the product with such mark whether for sale in India or for the purpose of export would be considered as infringement The Defendants argued that as the product is sold in Turkey and not in India, Plaintiff‟s rights are not being infringed. It was further argued as the mark „Maaza‟ was registered by the Defendant worldwide, can sell products with that mark anywhere on earth. Finally in the light of the above stated reasons the Hon‟ble Court granted an interim injunction against defendant. The court said that there is a prima facie case in favor pf plaintiff and also the balance of convenience also lies in favor of the plaintiff only and if the injunction is not issued the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Therefore the repudiation of the agreement by the defendant was invalidated by the court of law and all the trademark rights of MAAZA were given back to the plaintiff. It was held that exporting of goods from a country is considered as sale within the country from where the goods are exported and the same amounts to infringement of trademark. As the Defendant were manufacturing and exporting the product with the mark „Maaza‟ from India, Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Court granted an interim injunction against Defendant from using the mark in India as well as for export market. . This case is significant as it reiterates and upheld the previously decided cases on trademark related issues like J.N. Nichols (Vimto) Ltd. v. Rose and Thistle and Anr., 1994 (14) PTC 83 (Cal) (DB), the issue of jurisdiction was previously decided in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Mahavir Steels & Ors. 47(1992) DLT 412, LG Corporation & Anr. v. Intermarket Electroplasters(P) Ltd. and Anr., 2006 (32) PTC 429, para 12. It was a similar situation in the present case where the defendant sold all the rights of the trademark to the plaintiff but still used it, resulting in a trademark infringement suit. The present case is a landmark case concerning patent infringement. The issues raised were of the jurisdiction and infringement. But this case has made it evident that the Trademark is a global phenomenon and it protects proprietors across boundaries. This case is seen as one of the landmark judgments for reference in today‟s IPR related issues. Also, this case has made it clear that a trademark of any organization can be registered anywhere once there is an assignment conferring the rights entirely, be it within the country or outside of it. The Judgement laid the groundwork for several similar decisions where separate companies that have rights over the same goods in different nations will supply products to the same manufacturers. Reference  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109517976/  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark