Karnataka High Court
Spr Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs John Distilliries Limited on 13 December, 2010
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H N Nagamohan Das
to
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE
CFC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2010 PA.SSED'0E\l"~«
LA. No. 2 IN 0.3. ND. E347/2010 ON THE FILE.;'__DI?«.x;-v1'II.-.__.'.
ADDITIONAL CITY ClVlL JUDGE. BANGALORE.fClTY';._1
ALLOWING I.A.N0. 2 FILED UN DER ORDER"3~0jjjRtIEEsA l__
AND 2 CFC FOR T.I.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN II'E.Ai<D"AND !§E;SE'RV-':EE'm
FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, Ii'.I~s..__ NAlG.AlVIQHAlNA..;vD,AS._} I,
PRONOUNCEDTHE F'OLLOWlN(3--;,
This appeal is;.ag21i1Isv1'-tlie.i:I1te1'imr_Qrrlevrlrliltietl 27.07.2010 in
0.3. No.I347/2_03I_0 the ..1>{\fII'I";:xdLII:IonaI City Civil
Judge, Bangalere. 2 fiied under Order 39
Rules 1 -tlIle'----2Ippi<-:llant from using the label, cap
and bottle l'o'r.i_;_<;l p_l'0CluClS.il'},Sl.!'Ch shape, design, contours, surface
_ patter.u.§c()l0~tIrs etc.," 0f the piaintiff.
" _ /5§I5pelli:1nt' is the defeiidaiit and respondent is the plaintiff
l1b'eif0ife_tlIcv:FIfr.i.;i'l lC.'O.t!:i't in O.S.N0.l347/2010. In this judgment, for V V' c(InveIa__ieII(je,' parties are referred to their status before the Trial " 4' ' --. C'0uI"t'.
3. Pl.a_intif1' is a registered company engaged in the bu_si.n_es.sio_i' |nt1ntit'ac1urir1g. selling, ma1'l<e.ting, trading and exptirting oi"
made i'o|'ei.gn liquor under various brzlndnyames. -'VVitl'1'*--e_i'fee'ta 'fr-;)1r1-.v ()4.(}4.l996 the plaintiff markets and sellis-tya E3'ran-d ol'».1_iiq~u:or in a specially designed bottle, labe':'iand__cap in the n21r°neiand--vs.tylie of sgriginal Choice'. Plaintiff obtztinediiify,;a,dQ--;a3_;ti°k of the name of 'Original Choice' P1air1t.ii'i' has also obtained registratioii f'Q;~"'the- the Designs Act under From October/i'fIQyetnibsei':"2itZtQ8V,_ii using the label, design, shape ofiioottle' i'oriithe:--INIFL whisky under the name and style of' 'Origmalt Choieei' l'nys_o far the new label, design, shape of tl1e«.il3otI~Ee etci,"v--the plpaintiff had applied for registration of tradempaikvbe.fere"the Trademarks Registry and the same is pending. Plziintift' eoI1:e'nds',that its new label. cap and design of the bottle has sheen Well 'i'eceiyed in the market, substantial sum has been spent to i_;3opuila1_jize the mark and sales have been increased. W ii
4. 1n the month of March 2009. the clefcndant t1p_pl.iedil'o_1' approval of its label called 'Smuglers Cask' heforc_ Coininissioner. KE1I'I1aI£1ktL Plaintif'f opposed the £1[t)[()1l(i'itLlVOl'liflltlti by -- the defendant for grant of Elpproval oi' ;l'ts"'i1'eW l5Il3el._.. jlTl"§9_ Exciisevnw Coinmissioner, after hearing both the p;a.rtie$Ljpié1sse:ien"ordei'*--oVn?i.:
23.07.2009 allowing the tlpplicdtion 1-'iteti 'by met,_td§;':f§:nd}ini;' Thereafter the defendant released itslvfteyvlzibe-l, icapntidl in the name of 'Srnuglers Cask' f:"Olfl'i oeteme¢gr- Plain't'i['t"'eontends that the new product released 'by, the almost replica of the label, cap and design ofAthev:l)ottle--.adopted [tiie piaiittifl'. The new pi'od't_1ct released':E:ythe"defe'nd'a11t is deceptively similar only to cause eonfusui'o._ninvthe_1n.i'nd"oi']the consumer and impeach upon the bu.s_in.e§js olthe pl2{inti.t't'. A. 'A Pli1l.ntit'l' contends that despite the knowledge of ;iltiin't.i_t.'{?ls""1'ie'_w__lzth'e'll cap and design, the defendant has willftllly, V _ dishoiiestly::ind"'deceitfully adopted and copied the label, cap. shape, gn a.nd"contours of the bottle of the plaintiff for its products only .j_.wli.tl1"a"View to passing oft' its goods as ll1t)St;' of plai11tif'i"s. Plztintifl N3' 2/} V 2 3 '3 further.' contends that the defendant sold oniy -1 cases in the month of April 2009 under its old brand 'Sinugiers Cask' and no sates-'--_are recorded from May 2009 tiii November 2009. The defe1t'<iar';-{hf~, adopting the iabel, cap and design of the piaintifl' in M increased its sales enormously. This unprecedented giowth inthe I sales of defendant was only due to the tfactetf deceptive' gtdtaptioniiirnvvv "
account of this act on the part of the idetendzint, plairrtiflflhasv stiffeifed huge loss, its sates had come dowi1.ia'nd'utntoid-- hardship"is'caused t.o them. Having no other alternative piamnt-tare-a"_Q.'s,_No. 1347/2010 for decree of permanent-injancti0n.'restrain_i:tg déffendant from using ptaintiff's*...}att-e'i, bottie and its shape, contours, surface patteirn.,_' coiors ettyto .di_rect the defendant to deiiver true and . _ eorrectfiaccount a11d"i7ei* other reliefs.
6. Defeiidttntwenteretl appearance before the Triai Court and.i7iiet,E..iéviiitten"e-statement interaiia contending that the suit is not inainta_inah1e _in'..~\'/iew of the permission granted under the Designs 'Act and the-"defei1rlant's mark is not in any manner phonetically or _h'»--i.sVual1y' simiiar to the piaintit'f's mark. The (1it'fei'eiice between the (3 mark of plaintiff and defendant will in no \- ray cause con1'usion.. yin_the_ mind of average consumer. On these grounds the Lfet'erida%__1tlopposetiiz the claim of plaintiff.
7. During the pendency of Eljt: proe'eeci'ing1s Trial Court, the plaintiff filed LA. No._ 2 uiidertlrder l ll 2 CPC for grant of temporary i11juncti'en and the"sa_rri'e -svaslivtipposed by the defendant. The Trial"'VCou1_"t :.lfi-earihg hothllthe parties framed the following points for .e(>aslidera*tioh': i. whe;*1hc3;:11e pl}3_int§fi'hasniade' oéita prima facie case'? oliconvenience lies in favour of ullhevplVaih'ti_i;i:'?V.:' in "l lEhe__plai11tif1' will be put to irreparable loss and yir'._§fll'1'r'y 1' injunction is re fu secl'? The Trial Court, on appreciation of pleadings, ..ai't"id'av_iyts, documents and by Considering the arguments. passed the ' ««.--'impugried order holding that the suit is maintainahle, the adoption of ufilabel, cap. design and shape of bottle is deceptively similar to that of ~«...
.v--»J :3 // I s A/ plaintiff. There is likelihood of contusion to the ordinary cottlsu-iner and the plaintiff will be put to ir;~:,-parable loss injunction is not granted. Accordingly, Court' i No. 2 restraining the defendant from using' for its products in such type, desi'gtrt',«--.._col()ui-_ctc.,V o£7':tl1e; p}aint_ifi'.i Hence, this appeal. .V ._ _ V
9. Sri K.G. Ragh_a'van, _l'earnetd__:»;en:i.or counsel for the defendant contends that the Trial __t.rT~; consider the provisions under ;t'hle"'s;E)_ie-'sigrts Act"specifica'lt!yliars filing any civil suit for passing-- unregistered design. That apart the plaintiff has .t_'il'ed the_lsuiit«in"-Qi.'S.No. 1496/2010 for piracy of the registered design and .there"fo1'e" the present suit is not maintainable. Wherjlthei suit is no't'«mai.11tainable, the Trial Court ought to have i*efu:;ed to gt-1n.t' temporary injunction. The Trial Court committed an Ciii"I'()i'._"ln'T10::'CQil.I§€-iVd'3F'lHg the fact that there is no pleading regarding the 'alleged_ deteepitive similarity between the pl_ainti'l'l"s m:.trl< and ivdCl'CI}(iElili'iS'«t_1]arl<. The Trial Court without appreciating the material ' oi1";*cc.oi'd ipirocc.cde-d on assumptions and presumptions. Absolutely //}f, 2'' _/ fly' there is no evidence. on the question oi' confusion in the consumer with regard to the plaintiffs mark and The Triai. Court committed an iliegality i.n..hQ_i_ding_~'tihat"
has made out a prinaa»faeie ease, the their favour and that they wiil be ptiit_te.,i1'1'epariable .lt)s;§,._,v if*:il"lj:'i!ll,(.'i.'iOf} is not granted. This finding of the Tijiia;l_C'oiirt is in'otVsupp?i)rted by any reasons and contrary tO"'«thie.,pi*ead.irI.gs°'aij'ti«material on record. Reiiance is placed on'--several'decisions'.,"z_
10. Sri Sarij';;1§iJ:1in, learriedisepiiioir 'Cf)_EJ,i.1SCi for the plaintiff supports Tithe?i'1i":pt1ig:1e€?,:itirtiélflpassed by the Trial Court. It is contended thatu O.VS.iiTi\.lo;t_I"3%i_;[/20!0 is filed for infringement of pDesign.ig Copiiyri-ght_s__HAct and Trademarks Act. On the other Q.S.._N.o;«.,l?i'96/20l(} was filed for infringement. of Designs Act tiiaiyf "--.'i'hieii-ciforeijthie suit of the piaintifl' in 0.3. No. 1347/2010 is 'vllitiinitiiiiiifiztliiiiifivi. ii material on record discioses that the defendant 2,jdespitentheiikntiwiedge of piaintil"l"s new label, cap and design of the ' «i.i--'b(i)ttie tviiiiiiliy, dishonestiy and dissentfully adopted and copied the " copy, shape, design and contour oi" the bottle of piaintifi'. The ___M3""*' MM) 9 Trial Court by appreciating the entire material on record passed-..the. impugned order and the same is in accordance with lawxzind"do'"t--iot*'..__' call forinterfc1'ence. Reliance is placed otiseyeral de'ci'sion'_s.. ll. Heard arguments on both side; ti«t1ti'1'p'et_'t1sed._V entire appeal papers. .. .
12. The material on ree.ort1..Vdiscl'osestthat No. 1347/2010 was filed earlier It-9 0.3. VAl\1oi:"lv496!_201{l.A' The grievance of plaintiff in 0.3. No. 1347"/zoo:-o"ig_ihrft-ifiigtéijirgiit. of Designs Act. Copyrighit'-.AActiandiiihe-~,:T1fad'e:1a.a1*-ks Act. On the other hand, the grievance of tire plaintiff in E496/2Ul0 is only infringement of D65-;ié;nV$ Act. The"it$stt_e__ii1volvecl in 08. No. 1496/2010 is only in V.'.'V1T(;SVlV)VE'3E,'lVV()f.I1£1kC:€i'tit3Sign ol' the bottle. On the other hand, the issue i1lV0A1'.\/(~'.fl in i347/2010 is the shape, design, contour, 'surface patte.t'1i, cap, label, colour, wordm.ar]<. etc. Further when an einpty-._E)ottl.e is used as a container it. looses its character of design 'frantfz embraces the character of tradeinark. Even if the plaintiff fails idqptoiisttcceed in the second suit in ().S. No. M96/2(}l{), the same will ] 0 not have any bearing on the earlier suit in ().S. No. 134712t1'.l(}.__ Therefore, the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff 1.347/2010 is rnziintainabie. Hence. I deelinemto accept" the :eon0tenti--oVn 0 of learned senior counsel for the defendaiit:_"'th.£;t the =suit is mztintainztble and therefore temporary ii1jul1CEiOi."l0iLi]I]OiiVi)'t':A~.gF.2113Lgd.t. 1.3. The Trial Court not.ieed"thé1t fromQetoher/Noévember 2008 the piaintiff started using~..t_he :_:hape,i'-:i.e:a;ig1i, labei, color, wordmark etc and is seiiing undeitjtheijname and style of "Original Choie'e":;":;iT.tt:)n other hand,0't:he..defi'endant entered the market in'v..the'-- ::ioiitiii;3ir:%i;e¢en:ibe.i~ 2609 and selling Ei\/EFL whisky under the f1EliVVf['='3_' of.V"Sinu0gIer's.Cask". Thus the plaintiff entered the in2trket§earIiei' to the'~--dev_i'en«c!2int. It is seen from the record that the 0"._Vdefen'd;tnt..Vwassetiving IMFL whiskey tmder the name. of "Sniugiers C21sk""hy tisiiigii "'ere.nt shape. design, label, colour. 1rtari< etc, up [to the u121()iis!jVh of November 2009 and the same was 2} registered tr:1den1:irk.00it was oniy in the month of December 2009 the defendant ' 'iistziigted using the shape, design. label, cap, eotour. mark ete.. similar u".to the one ahetidy used by the piairitiif. The Trial Court on eurefui €'~'i_r-s.
U //1' consideration of both the plztintiffs mark and defetidant'§.,iiiark._ prima--facie concluded that the defendant's mark is similar to that of plaintiff. This finding otfmthe Trial"Coti'rt,,h'att. the stage of disposing an interlocutory applicati'on,::'is in ac~'.:_ordanr:e' :;_' law and I find no justifiable ground to interfere'vwi.tl1Vthe'satne.. E4. The Trial Court by considei'ing the anitouritt --:{pent by the plaintiff on advertising {1'1C'l1:'_Jf3E.'0ClL_f:C[, entry into market much earlier to the deVl'endant,VV_fal'l in rise in the sales of defendant righti.y4cocncl::de--d tl?1La't"'the"b_alance..ei° convenience is in favour of the plaizitilf .t;he'y will be put to great hardship and inconvenienceiié' an order'ol"'teii;:p0rary injunction is not granted. In ._the l:'acf--§; and Cll'ClllTl'E€¥';Ett1C€S. of this case this finding of the Trial Coui"t~ is in ai:c<)i'd2:t_ice with law and the same do not call for any inteiil'e'rei1ce.' .. V it is the contention of the defendant that the Trial Court not tv2].}{Cn into consideration the order passed the Excise Commissioner while rejecting the objections raised by the §:;'lain't.i_l'l";--_ in his order the Excise Commissioner has observed as under':
"The object of the Circular issued by Vot7l'.i';ce'."
wherein the procedure for £1pplTQV21}.__Qlfi:
prescribed is to (a) publicize, the labels,'..(b) keep 1 liquor industry informed ab0u.tL1.'th¢. lahels int.'ro'duVc'eduV ' and (C) that there is__no hlata.nt:'infringementof existing labels, etc. Tli~f)_..V.:Sl'1EitI1Cl_E1l"Cl;V' ;tdopte.d"i7or verifying whether there is infringei:nent."is :ith2:=.t..Vot°-i.fan__'ordinary prudent personaiin _simfilar:ei_rcurnstdi1ces'. rm' doubt the Trade ._Rig'l1t:lAct have prescribed higlieriiistandardsiftor there are several judg,ine--i1ts.aBitit.tl1ethis enquiry is limited."
16. Further V3 Di,yis'i.oii'«.Biench of this Court in the case of Distillierites, .... ..\.*s. Excise Commissioner', WA. No. 999"!jlSpt)Eé(ed on 10.12.1999, held as lII1tlCI'.'--~ ""i§f__cti:spttte to the trademark can be said to only it" two labels displayed on the bottles which ii . ,_are identical or deceptively similar to each other, of * different manufacturers are in circulation and both manut':'tcturers claim the right to use the said label on their brand of liquor while, at the same time. alleging infringeineiit or passing off of a tl'Ei(iCl"I1Z1t'i'\' by tl1e._"~ other. it is no doubt true that remedy in situation would certainly lie before a District Court C"
a common law suit. The Excise Ar;-t"does not provide V for any remedy to such wrong-4doi:ng..'oitee 'sueli infringement takes place. But the iE_xci'se A(I"t"'i'tiO¢S provide a machination for 'prevention "'o_fi_ eventuality at the VCF5'...Il1r€Si1CJiLi<.'i:¥1. theformiiot',RL;»£e 15(5) of the Rules. ?iiiie'~.w:{m;: ii*Iio'tzset--_ot'fieer is mandated to ensure t1iti.t..eyer.y him is in accordan'ce'*;with Trade'&::'l's1.er(:_11.ti»ndise Marks Act, l9.:'38 power to use his discre.ti0_n"aridreject laibeylgit' he finds that its approval. woa;lVd..result'«ion';-n_t'1'i.ngernent of a brand name already in Excise Commissioner has done _§us't«,t'hat yin'.the~.Vpre«s'ent case. There is absolutely no disptlte relatiyng to. infringement or passing oft' of a A ',itt'E1d.iii};t]&l'ik"i.l1 the present case. Certainly there would ii onc§..i1' the Excise Commissioner, in exercise ii _of hisjuiifistdietion, approved the label sought to be the appellant and respondent No.2 was ii . ,t_'aggi*i'e.ved by such approval. Then, the remedy for "--.respondent No.2 would be before District Court as prescribed by S.l()5 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act in a common law suit. The first respondent was well within his powers to use his discretion to //')"' 3' /' either approve or reject an application for use of brand. T name on a product. The first respondent hajv'iiig.ij*-.._i' exercised his discretion to rehiect the application', cannot be said that he had no jtlt'iSiCliCti()t1'i.4l() ' A Whether the discretion has been prope:fl'yAexercisierlioréi it not is besides the point ai1d»'1*aoreovei*__it' bfllflgr'i:l'i:_:{l'l;3_"
realm of adjudication of a 'i'a1ctirali»dispute,..vvedo not think we should interfere ieXerciseiir5t"'sucVh discretion. Added -to T . it; ..da1»wVays the presumption that an A.offi'ci--al 'act:,'idone in accoi'dance;~'wii'thlaw unlessr"the"con*t.rary__.i.s proved. If the appeiliantfeelsithatthe:e:;e_rciise.:of.discretion by the first_respond'erit--:;;is__improper aridflillegal it is open to him to before the Tribunal as provided in Seek} l_jjo.ti tizg{";2ic~r;"
l7. The Excise' Clginmissioiicr passed the order approving the
--'r.Eabel Cilidefepiidgint byiiiemrcising his discretion under Rule 15 of the "E}1xc.i;se =R_u"lcs'.i ,V"'~Wiii--ether the discretion exercised by the Excise Cornmissione.1' iri accordance with law or not is to be decided by a _ t'.(_>Inpeten~t Civil Court. Even without qlI€Sll()i1ll1g the order passed ._ the lfixcise Commissioner it is open to the plaintift' to protect. their V' .._"i'[l'21(i€7il11Ell"i( by filing a suit under the provisions of Trade l\/larks Act. /;;i~e 15 Therefore the nonwcoztsideration of the order passe.d by the Excise Commissioner in favour of the defendant is not an error or illegality committed by the Trial Court.
18. For the reasons stated above, the appear.
disrnissed. However, the Trial Court to,»ci.is_pose_'itheii's*e'_i;jg. \}v*ithout~t.v being influenced by any of the observations in.{h'e_.ii1n;§uv};eeEi1»i.i order and aiso in this order.