Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. As per the plaintiffs, they are in business of manufacturing and distribution of wines, liquors and spirits. They are manufacturing and selling whisky in the name of 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue'. They have registered trade mark in respect of them and also have such registered trade mark in respect of Seagram's which is the house mark of plaintiff No.1 and which is used in India and Internationally and which appears on their products sold under various brands. The defendant has imitated the aforesaid trade mark of plaintiffs and is manufacturing and selling its whisky under the trade mark 'London Pride'. The trade mark of plaintiffs namely; Blenders Pride was adopted in 1973 and was registered in favour of Seagram's Company Limited. The plaintiffs have become proprietors of the said trade mark in India with effect from 27.06.2018. Blenders Pride is marketed with a distinctive label and Seagram's logo.

17. As regard the primary submission of the learned Senior counsel for the plaintiffs to the effect that the entire registered trademark should be compared with the offending trademark without spitting up and dissecting any of the trade marks to adjudge visual, phonetic and structural similarity is concerned, the same has been emphatically laid down by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions in the judgments which have been relied upon hence there cannot be any quarrel with the said proposition. Though it is contended that the trial Court has split up and dissected the trademarks of the contesting parties and has thereafter held that there is no similarity in the same, but from the impugned order it does not appear so. Be that as it may, since the allegation of plaintiffs is that the mark London Pride as a whole is remarkably similar to the mark Blenders Pride, upon comparison of the products i.e. the bottles which have been produced before us and the pictures which have been reproduced at various places in the pleadings, there does not appear to be any similarity in both of them. The height and colour of the bottles is itself quite different. Blenders Pride is round in shape whereas London Pride is cylindrical in shape. The label fixed upon both of them is having entirely different pattern. Even a man of average intelligence with imperfect recollection, which as per the learned counsel for plaintiffs is the real test for comparison, would not be in any manner confused with the identity of both the bottles. There would be no occasion for him not to be able to distinguish between both of them. At a glance, he would be able to make out that both are not similar at all. Likewise, the boxes in which the bottles are sold are also different in their shape itself. While the box of Blenders Pride is much broader the box of London Pride is not so. The writings on the boxes are different. The Hologram, the manner in which the words are written on the boxes and various other features on them cannot in any manner deceive a common man or create a confusion in his mind as regards their identity. By merely looking at both the boxes, he can very easily make out as to which is the box of Blenders Pride and which is the box of London Pride. This is also the factual position as regards comparison of the box of Imperial Blue whisky with the box of London Pride whisky. Rather they are even more distinct as the box of London Pride has a flag kind of printing over it.

20. In any case, no material has been placed by plaintiffs to show that individual elements of their registered marks, such as the blue colour, the golden dome, or the arrangement of letters on the label, or even the shape of the bottle, have acquired secondary meaning over a period of time, or have become associated with their marks.

21. Much emphasis has been laid on behalf of plaintiffs on the commonality of the word 'Pride' in Blenders Pride and London Pride bottles. However, it is to be seen that registration of trade mark of plaintiffs is in the name of 'Blenders Pride' and not 'Pride'. It is not only a single word 'Pride' which has been registered in name of plaintiffs but the entire name i.e. 'Blenders Pride' which has been registered. It was open for plaintiffs to have got the word 'Pride' registered separately under the provisions of Section 15 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 which is an under:

23. Merely by use of the word 'Pride' by the defendant there cannot be any misconception or misapprehension in the mind of the consumer, a common man, which may lead to any confusion in his mind. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the products such as the present one are known by and are purchased by their entire name and if not then more often by their first word. The first word of the trade mark of plaintiffs is 'Blenders' whereas that of the defendant is 'London'. There is absolutely no similarity in them leave aside any dissimilarity. 'PRIDE' being a generic, common place and laudatory expression in 'BLENDERS PRIDE' mark, the common man would certainly treat 'BLENDERS' part of plaintiff's mark as the dominant part. The question of comparison of the words 'Imperial Blue' and 'London Pride' does not even arise. Thus, even going by the name of product of both the parties, there would be no possibility for a common man to be confused or being misled by the name of product of defendant. From the documents, which are available on record, it reveals that Pride is publici juris common to trade and there are 48 variants of trade mark in class 32 and 33 with the word 'Pride' and many of them are registered with the Excise Authority as well for sale and purchase of liquor. Plaintiff's stand of claiming exclusivity in respect of 'PRIDE' part of its 'BLENDERS PRIDE' mark, alleging infringement on the ground that defendant is using a mark including 'PRIDE' as a part thereof, hence cannot be accepted.