The Delhi High Court has awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs and legal costs of approximately Rs. 13 lakhs in favour of Starbucks in a trademark infringement suit over the mark “FRAPPUCCINO” including “BROWNIE Chips FRAPPUCCINO”.
Brief Facts:
The case of Plaintiff is that Plaintiff is a lifestyle-brand company that opened its first retail store in 1971 under the name ‘Starbucks’ in the United States. It offers a variety of coffee, tea, and spices. The company under the name ‘Starbucks Corporation’ was incorporated in 1985 and expanded by opening more offices at different locations. It is alleged that the Plaintiff under the trademark “FRAPPUCCINO” offers hand-crafted blended cold beverages which are widely popular throughout the world. Specific flavours are developed for various countries under the mark “FRAPPUCCINO” for both long-term and short-term promotions. It has been asserted that Plaintiff has been featured for the said mark in multiple national and international trade magazines and newspapers circulated throughout the world including India.
It has been submitted by the Plaintiff that a pact was entered in 2011 with Tata Coffee Ltd. to open retail stores in India. In 2011, the joint venture company under the name of ‘Tata Starbucks Private Limited’ was incorporated and the first store was opened in Mumbai. It is alleged that the registration of the trademark “FRAPPUCCINO” in India has been done under various classes.
It was in 2018, that Plaintiff came to know that Defendant No. 2 was running a café under the name of Defendant No. 1 in Jaipur, Rajasthan, and selling a beverage under the name of “BROWNIE Chips FRAPPUCCINO” without any license or authorization from the Plaintiff. The menu of the café was also published over portals such as Zomato and EazyDiner. The Plaintiff sent multiple notices to the Defendants against this, but no response has been received.
It has been contended by Plaintiff that via a telephonic conversation with the Director of Defendant No. 2 the Director had given an undertaking that the mark “FRAPPUCCINO” would not be used but still Plaintiff found out that the use of the said mark has not been stopped by the Defendant.
Therefore, Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants from using the mark “FRAPPUCCINO” including “BROWNIE Chips FRAPPUCCINO” and other similar marks.
History of the Case:
The Defendants did not appear or file the written statement and hence, the Court issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Defendants restraining them from using the above said marks.
Thereafter, before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) it was submitted by both parties that the suit is likely to be settled as the parties have arrived at a compromise.
Later, Plaintiff filed an application under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking a summary judgment against the Defendants. The Defendants neither appeared nor filed their reply against the said application.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the Plaintiff is the registered user of the said mark and has a worldwide reputation. The Defendants by using a similar mark are trying to ride on the reputation of the Plaintiff.
The High Court noted that in the act of adopting a similar mark as that of Plaintiff, Defendant has tried to deceive the consumer and the same amount to trademark infringement.
The decision of the Court:
Since the Court had already passed an ex-parte ad-interim order against the Defendants, the Delhi High Court passed a summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. Damages to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs and legal costs were awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and accordingly, the suit was decreed.
Case Title: Starbucks Corporation v. Lol Café & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla
Case No.: CS(COMM) 452/2019
Advocates for Plaintiff: Advs. Ms. Priya Adlakha, Mrs. Bindra Rana, Ms. Rima Majumdar, Ms. Shilpi Sinha
Advocates for Defendant: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
