Delhi High Court
Tata Sons Limited & Ors. vs M/S Mayuri Beverages on 9 November, 2017
#22
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 1445/2016 & I.A. 13197/2016
TATA SONS LIMITED & ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Achuthan Sreekumar with
Mr. Karan Kamra, Advocates
versus
M/S MAYURI BEVERAGES ..... Defendant
Through: None
% Date of Decision: 9th November, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Since none has appeared for the defendant despite publication,
it is proceeded ex-parte and the ad-interim injunction order dated 24th
October, 2016 is confirmed.
2. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that in
view of the judgment of this Court in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. &
Ors. Vs. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 508,
the present suit should be decreed qua the relief of injunction. The
relevant portion of the said judgment relied upon by learned counsel
for the plaintiff is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such
cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence
in the form of affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and
which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the
plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC,
besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the
plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any
additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-
in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to
any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have
been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record. I
have therefore heard the counsel for the plaintiffs on
merits qua the relief of injunction."
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further states that he has
instructions not to press for any relief other than the relief of
permanent injunction and costs, as prayed for in para 55(i), (ii) and
(iii) of the plaint.
4. The relevant facts of the present case as pointed out by learned
counsel for the plaintiff are as under:-
A. The present suit has been instituted on behalf of the plaintiffs
seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant from infringing
and passing off its registered trademarks, from diluting and tarnishing
its trademarks, including the reliefs of delivery up, rendition of
accounts, damages and costs.
B. The plaintiff no.1 company namely, Tata Sons Limited is
derived from the surname of the plaintiff's founder, Shri Jamsetji
Nusserwanji Tata which is a rare patronymic name possessing the
distinctiveness of an invented word. The said plaintiff, for its own
business activities and those of its group companies, subsidiaries and
the companies promoted by it, has continuously and consistently been
using the trademark/trade name 'TATA' and its various permutations
and combinations thereon, since its inception in the year 1917 whereas
the use of the name/trade mark TATA by the predecessors-in-business
of the plaintiff no.1 company dates back to the year 1868.
C. Plaintiff no.2 company is an associate company of plaintiff no.1
which focuses on branded natural beverages such as tea, coffee and
water. The plaintiff no.3 company namely Nourish Co Beverages Ltd.
was created in light of a joint venture between plaintiff no.2 and
PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited.
D. The plaintiff no.3 company aims to provide meaningful
hydration solutions in the non-carbonated, ready-to-drink beverages
segment in India and around the world. The product portfolio of the
plaintiffs include: 'Himalayan', India's premiere natural mineral water
brand, 'Tata Gluco Plus', a glucose based drink in an affordable cup
format and 'Tata Water Plus', Nutrient Water that seeks to provide
essential micronutrients.
E. The plaintiff no.3 company is manufacturing, selling,
distributing and packaging India's first nutrient water under the brand
name and trademark 'TATA WATER PLUS' which aims to mitigate
nutritional gaps in the average Indian consumer by delivering 'Healthy
Beverages for a Healthier India'.
F. An original and innovative concept in the area of health and
nutrition, the nutrient water of the plaintiffs under the brand name
'TATA WATER PLUS' contains nutrients, such as copper which
helps support body functions, and zinc with highlighted copy which
helps strengthen the immune system. While it looks and tastes like
normal water, every sip of 'TATA WATER PLUS' is packed with
copper and zinc in a form that can be easily absorbed by the body.
G. The plaintiff no.1 company, Tata Sons Limited is the proprietor
and owner of the well-known trademarks 'TATA' and 'TATA
WATER PLUS'. Plaintiff nos.2 and 3 have been permitted by
plaintiff no.1 company to use the trademark 'TATA WATER PLUS'
vide a trademark license agreement dated 26th August, 2011. A copy
of the said license agreement has been filed.
H. The plaintiff no.1, its group companies, its subsidiaries and the
companies promoted are also the proprietor of the trademarks 'TATA
WATER PLUS' and 'TATA' in Class 32 [Beers; mineral and aerated
waters and other non-alcoholic beverages; fruit beverages and fruit
juices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages.], the
relevant class for the purposes of the present suit. A table detailing the
trademark registrations of the plaintiffs in the said class are outlined in
paragraph 19 of the plaint and printouts from the website of the
Trademark Registry, Government of India as regards the same have
been filed in the present proceedings.
I. The plaintiff no.1, its group companies, its subsidiaries and the
companies promoted are also the proprietor of the trademarks 'TATA
WATER PLUS' and 'TATA' in Class 16 [Paper and cardboard;
printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery;
adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists' materials;
paintbrushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture);
instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic
materials for packaging; printers' type; printing blocks. A table
detailing the trademark registrations of the plaintiffs in the said class
are outlined in paragraph 20 of the plaint and printouts from the
website of the Trademark Registry, Government of India as regards
the same have been filed in the present proceedings.
J. As a result of the continuous and extensive use of the plaintiffs'
trademarks 'TATA WATER PLUS' and 'TATA', over a long period
of time spanning a wide geographical area coupled with extensive
promotion and publicity, the said trademarks have come to enjoy an
unparalleled reputation and goodwill acquiring the status of a 'well-
known trademark'.
K. Being reputed and well-known trademarks, the marks 'TATA
WATER PLUS' and 'TATA' embody an aura of pre-eminent
excellence and are recognized irrespective of the class of goods or
services for which they are used.
L. The cause of action against the defendant in the present suit first
arose in September, 2016 when the plaintiffs from credible and
reliable market sources learnt that the defendant entity through its
proprietors, was manufacturing, selling and distributing packaged
drinking water (pouches) under the infringing brand name/mark
'TAZA WATER PLUS'.
M. On the receipt of the said information, the plaintiffs through
their legal representatives immediately instructed and engaged an
independent investigator to ascertain the exact nature and extent of the
infringing and illegal activities being carried out by the defendant
entity. It is stated that the investigation as conducted on the defendant
entity confirmed that it was indeed engaged in the manufacture, sale
and distribution of packaged drinking water (pouches) under the
infringing brand name/mark 'TAZA WATER PLUS'. It was further
revealed that one bag of the impugned product containing 100 pouches
bearing the infirming name and mark 'TAZA WATER PLUS'. The
original affidavit of the independent investigator has been filed in the
present proceedings.
N. The infringing activities of the defendant entity and its
proprietor were also confirmed by the findings of the Local
Commissioner appointed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 24 th
October, 2016. The said report of the Local Commissioner shows that
there were a total of 165 gunny bags, containing 100 packed water
pouches (total 16,500 pouches) bearing the infringing name and mark
'TAZA WATER PLUS' seized. Likewise, there were also 2 full rolls
of water packets (weighing 15 kgs each) and 4 half rolls of water
packets (weighing 7 kgs each) lying at the premises of the defendant
entity. The report of the Local Commissioner dated 3 rd December
2016 and the photographs of the premises of the defendant entity have
been filed in the instant proceedings.
O. A mere perusal of the photographs of the impugned product
bearing the infringing brand name and mark 'TAZA WATER PLUS'
as filed in the present proceedings show that the same is deceptively
similar to the plaintiffs' well-known mark 'TATA WATER PLUS'
and 'TATA'.
P. Further a mere comparison of the product packaging of the
impugned products of the defendant entity bearing the infringing
brand name and mark 'TAZA WATER PLUS' with the product of the
plaintiffs under the brand name and mark 'TATA WATER PLUS'
also brings to the fore the ulterior motive of the defendant entity and
its proprietor of passing off its products as that of the plaintiffs. The
defendant has adopted an identical trade-dress for its products.
Q. The plaintiffs' product packaging (pouch) on the front side
features a broad brown colored strip on which the words 'TATA' and
the word 'WATER' are written. The same is followed by narrow blue
strip underneath on which the word 'PLUS' is written. The original
packaging of the plaintiffs' product under the brand name and mark
'TATA WATER PLUS' has been filed in the said proceedings.
R. The defendant entity has adopted an identical trade dress as that
of the plaintiffs i.e. the brown and blue strips and even the font size
and style in which the words appear on the product packaging of their
product 'TATA WATER PLUS'. Photographs of the impugned
products of the defendant entity bearing the infringing brand name and
mark 'TAZA WATER PLUS' have been filed in the present
proceedings. The original packaging of the plaintiffs and the
packaging roll used by the defendant is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Plaintiffs Defendant
S. There is no plausible explanation by the defendant entity for
having adopted a deceptively similar mark 'TAZA WATER PLUS'
and an identical trade dress as that of the plaintiffs' product under the
brand name and mark 'TATA WATER PLUS'.
T. The said illegal and infringing activities on the part of the
defendant entity are blatant manifestation of the mala fides on the part
of the proprietor of the defendant entity to derive an unfair advantage,
illegal profits and gains by creating a false impression amongst
consumers/members of the trade that the impugned products bearing
the infringing brand name and trademark 'TAZA WATER PLUS'
emanate from the plaintiffs and that its activities have nexus,
association, affiliation with or endorsement from the plaintiffs.
U. The illegal and infringing activities of the defendant entity
assume a greater magnitude given the fact that the impugned product
is packaged drinking water (pouches), which being of inferior quality,
may lead to health issues which might even prove fatal. The plaintiffs
have no control whatsoever over the activities of the defendant entity
and will be held responsible for the same.
V. The activities of the defendant entity have also resulted in the
erosion of the plaintiffs' reputation and in weakening of the value and
strength of its brand name and trademarks 'TATA WATER PLUS'
and 'TATA' amounting to dilution and tarnishment of the same.
5. In view of the averments made in the plaint, which
remain uncontroverted, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is
entitled to the judgment in terms of the relief claimed for in para 55(i),
(ii) and (iii) of the plaint. However, since the plaintiff has not
established the quantum of damages, no relief in this regard can be
granted. As noted above, the counsel for the plaintiff has also
not pressed for the said relief.
6. In view of the above, the suit is decreed in favour of the
plaintiff and against defendants in terms of para 55 (i), (ii) and (iii)
of the plaint along with the actual costs. The costs shall amongst
others include the lawyers' fees as well as the amounts spent on
purchasing the court fees. The plaintiff is given liberty to file on
record the exact cost incurred by it in adjudication of the present suit,
if not already filed. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet
accordingly.
7. Consequently, the present suit and application stand disposed
of.
MANMOHAN, J
NOVEMBER 09, 2017
rn
