South African Breweries International (Finance) B.V. a company registered in Netherlands, along with its Indian joint venture company, promoted with SAB Group filed a suit for permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up of the infringing packaging and material against Mohan Goldwater Breweries Ltd in year 2002 & Anr.
The trademark “CASTLE”, which was originally adopted and used by Charles Glass, doing business as Glass & Company in respect of “beer”, in the year 1884. In 1895, Glass & Company was taken over by the South African Breweries Limited, which assigned worldwide rights in the trademark CASTLE to Avalon International Incorporate, which subsequently changed its name to SABMARK International Incorporated. Subsequently, SABMARK International assigned those rights to South African Breweries International Holdings Inc., which, in turn, assigned them to South African Breweries International (Finance) B.V i.e. Plaintiff herein. It claimed registration of the trademark CASTLE and CASTLE label in respect of beer in a large number of countries and also claims sale of US$ 1billion. According to the them, the trademark CASTLE is a well-known mark in India and is well-recognized worldwide on account of its extensive availability in various countries and duty free shop of various airports. It also claimed to be sponsoring the South African Cricket team for past 10 years and claimed that on account of such wide publicity, Indians would be familiar with the trademark CASTLE. It was also alleged that they had been selling beer in India since 1974, under the trademark CASTLE. They also applied for registration of CASTLE (label) on 29th April, 1995 and the word mark CASTLE on 6th February, 1996. The registrations were granted during pendency of the suit.
The Mohan Goldwater Breweries Ltd i. e. Defendant no. 1 herein sent a notice dated 15th April, 2002 to South African Breweries International (Finance) B.V. i.e. plaintiff claiming ownership of the trademark CASTLE PILSNER in respect of beer. They also claimed that the trademark OLD CASTLE and CASTLE were registered in their favour on 30th May, 1972 and 22nd October, 1973 respectively and also claimed that the plaintiffs were passing off their goods as those originating from the defendants and, thereby infringing their registered trademark.
On enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that the trademark registrations in favour of the defendants had been removed from the record of Registrar of Trademarks and in fact, the defendants never sold any product bearing the trademark CASTLE. The plaintiffs had sought an injunction, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or advertising any beer or alcoholic beverages, using the trademark CASTLE. They also sought delivery up of all the goods, packaging material bearing the impugned mark besides damages of Rs 20,00,000/-.
The defendant no. 1 contested and filed a written statement taking a preliminary objection that since it was carrying on business of manufacture and sale of beer under the trademark CASTLE only in Uttar Pradesh, Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is claimed that CASTLE is one of the oldest brands being used by defendant No. 1 to sell its beer and it has been selling bear using the trademarks CASTLE and OLD CASTLE since 1970-71. It is also alleged that registration of the trademark OLD CASTLE (label) was granted to defendant No. 1 on 30th May, 1972 vide Trade Mark No.280552, whereas registration of the trademark CASTLE PILSNER STRONG BEER label was granted w.e.f. 22nd October, 1973, vide Trade Mark Registration No. 291623. It was also claimed that the renewal of the aforesaid trademarks was applied by defendant No. 1 on 13th June, 2000 and 17th May, 2000 respectively. It was also claimed that since the trademark CASTLE is being used by defendant No. 1, the plaintiffs have no right to use the aforesaid mark.
There was also another defendant in the matter, but in 2010, The matter between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 was compromised vide settlement contained in IA No. 4700/2010. Under the settlement, the plaintiff acknowledged defendant No. 2 to be the proprietor of the trademark KING CASTLE in respect of whisky, whereas defendant No. 2 acknowledged the plaintiffs to be the proprietors of the trademark CASTLE in respect of beer and other non-alcoholic beverages falling under International Class 32 of the Trademarks Act. Defendant No. 2 undertook not to use the trademark CASTLE in respect of beer or any other goods falling in Class 32 of the Trademarks Act. It also undertook not to seek registration of the trademark CASTLE for any goods falling in Class 32 of Trademarks Act.
On the question of territorial jurisdiction, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant No.1 is a Company having offices in Lucknow as well as in Delhi. Delhi office of defendant No.1 was stated to be 4F, Hansalya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Reliance was placed on Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it provides that every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the defendant, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain or in a Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction, the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The explanation to Section 20 provides that a corporation shall be deemed to carry on its business at its sole or principal office in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. Therefore, if the cause of action either wholly or in part arose in the jurisdiction of this Court, it would have territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. It was also alleged that defendant no. 2 has office in Delhi and products of the Defendant no. 1 were also sold in Delhi. The defendant no. 1 denied having any office in Delhi or selling any products in Delhi. It was further claimed that since the plaintiffs had learnt that the defendants had applied for registration of trade mark in Delhi, they could claim for injunction to prevent any sale of the infringing products in Delhi and in that case, Delhi Courts would have jurisdiction, whether any sale in Delhi has taken place or not.
The Court applied the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in Dhodha House and observed that in the opinion of this Court was that an advertisement by itself in a Trade Mark Journal would not confer jurisdiction on a Court within whose territorial limit the advertisement is published or is seen. In the opinion of this Court, if an application for registration of the impugned trade mark is made in the territorial jurisdiction of a Court that Court would have jurisdiction to try the suit relating to the particular trade mark. Since defendant No.1 applied for registration of the trade mark to the Registrar of Trade Marks at Delhi, as is evident from the advertisements, this Court would have jurisdiction to try the present suit.
The Court also relied on Exphar SA & Anr. v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 1682, where a cease and desist notice was given to the plaintiff at its office in New Delhi alleging infringement of the copyright of defendant No.1 by the plaintiff. Supreme Court held that a cease and desist notice in a copyright action cannot, particularly in view of Section 60 of the Act, be termed as a mere notice which is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction and that such a threat may give rise to a right to institute a suit but counter such threat and ask for relief on the ground that the alleged infringement to which the threat related was in fact an infringement of any legal right of the person making such threat. Section 60 of the Copyright Act is identical to Section 142 of the Trademarks Act and therefore this judgment does support the proposition that if a cease and desist notice is received at Delhi, the Courts would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit at the instance of the person to whom such a notice is given.
- Patent and Trademark Attorneys INDIA, NEPAL, BHUTAN, SRI LANKA, PAKISTAN, MALDIVES, BANGLADESH
Search This Blog
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Use of registered marks on the Google Ads Program as keywords amounts to trademark infringement and constitutes passing-off: Delhi High Court
In the matter of Makemytrip India Private Limited vs Booking.com B. V. & Ors. , vide its order dated 27th April 2022, Justice Pratibh...
Labels
- 1897
- 1997
- 2002
- 2007
- 2016
- 38(4)
- 38(5) of the Trademark Rules
- A composite suit for infringement of a registered design and a passing off action would not lie
- Acquiescence
- Advantage of Madrid filing in India
- Advantages of Madrid system
- advertising Law
- Advertising Law in India
- Advertising law India
- Advertising Lawyer
- alcohol advertising
- Amendment in claims
- America Invents Act
- appeal against trademark rectification
- Apple
- Aswal Associates
- Aswal Assocites
- Beta Form of Imatinib Myselate
- biotech patens in India
- Biotech patent in India
- Biotech patents in India
- Biotech patents India
- Booking.com judgement
- BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS
- Byond tech
- child advertising India
- Cognizable Offence
- Coke
- Coke Studio
- cokestudio.in
- Commissioner of Customs
- Compulsary license for patents
- compulsary license in copyright
- computer software patent
- Computer software patent in India
- Computer software patents
- Controller General of Patents
- Copyrigh litigation
- copyright board
- Copyright compulsary license
- Copyright in India
- Copyright Law Practice India
- copyright registration india
- Copyright Rules 2013
- criminal prosecution under Trademark infringment
- defence to trademark infringement
- Delhi High Court
- Delhi High Court Full Bench
- Design (Amendment) Rules 2014 Notified
- Design cancellation
- Design filing requirements India
- Design India
- Design Infringement
- Design infringment
- Design Passing Off
- Design Patent Practice India
- Design renewal India
- Dhodha House
- disadvantage of madrid filing in India
- divisional application
- DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE OR WAIVER FOR INFRINGEMENT
- domain dispute
- Draft Patent Amendment Rules 2010
- Draft Patent Amendment Rules 2011
- Draft Patent Amendment Rules 2013
- Dual Sim Patent
- EMR
- Ericsson
- Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. AIR 2004 SC 1682
- Examination of Trademark Application
- Exclusive Marketing Rights
- Expedited examination in India
- Exphar SA
- Expose Loot in the name of Commonwealth Games Misplaced priorities
- Extension of deadline to file Opposition
- fair description of goods
- fair use of marks
- false complaint of trademark infringment
- fee changes under copyright rules 2013
- fee for copyright filing
- fees for Patent design Taiwan Patent
- Filing International Trademark Application from India
- filing of PCT national phase Applications in India
- FIR Registration
- First of file
- First to Invent
- Form 24
- FRAND
- Full Bench Delhi High Court
- General clauses Act
- Generic Pharma Companies
- Glaverbel S.A. vs Dave Rose Ors.
- Glivec
- Google Ads Program judgement
- google advertisement judgement
- Govt fee for trademark filing in India
- GSK
- H.R. 1249
- Imatinib
- Imatinib Myselate
- Increase in patent fee
- Increased fee for Patents in India
- India joins Madrid Protocol
- India Patent
- India Patents
- Indian Copyright law
- Indian Copyright practice
- Indian Design law
- Indian Industrial Design Law
- Indian Patent
- Indian Patent Law
- Indian Patent Office
- Indian Patents Act
- Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia
- Indian trademark Law and Practice.
- Indian trademarks law
- Industrial Design law and Practice India
- Infringement of trademark
- Infringement under Section 62 of Copyright
- Intellectual Property Enforcement in India
- interlocutory Application
- International Preliminary Examining Authority
- International Trademark filing
- Interpretation of Indian Patents Act
- ip news
- IPEA
- IPRS
- IRDI
- ISA
- Justice A. K. Pathak
- Keyword judgement
- Laches
- Lalita Kumari Vs. State of UP & Ors.
- latest from Indian Patent office
- Law for advertising in India. Advertising India Law
- license for patents India
- loss of goodwill for false complaint
- Madrid filing in India
- Madrid Protection in India: Advantages and Disadvantages
- MADRID PROTOCOL
- Madrid Registration designating India
- Makeymytrip judgement
- Man Machine
- marketing approval for generic drugs
- MBD
- Metatag Judgement
- Micormax
- Mighty Mouse
- misery to people
- Mohan Goldwater Breweries Ltd
- monstrous corruption
- national phase entry in India
- New Amendments in Design Law India
- New Amendments in Trademark law in India
- New Patent Amendment Rules 2014 have increased the fee
- Nothing FAIR In FRAND (Ericsson- Micromax Patent Litigation)
- Notice of Provisional Refusal
- Notice of Provisional Refusal by Indian Trade marks Registry
- Novartis AG
- novartis Patent
- Novartis Patent India
- nternational Searching Authority
- Opposition agaist registered tradmarks
- Opposition opputunity
- packaging and labelling law india
- packaging and labelling requirements in india
- Passing off action can be instituted in case of Registered Design
- Passing off of Registered Design
- Patent
- Patent (Amendment) Rules
- Patent (Amendment) Rules 2011
- Patent Agent India
- Patent Amendment Rules 2019
- Patent amendments in India
- Patent Appeals
- Patent Attorney India
- Patent fee in India
- Patent filing in Asia
- Patent filing in India
- Patent filing in thailand
- Patent filing India
- Patent filing requirements
- Patent firm india
- Patent in India
- Patent India
- Patent infringement
- Patent Infringement and counter claims
- Patent infringment
- Patent law firm india
- Patent Law In India
- Patent law India
- Patent law India. Patent in India
- Patent law India. Patent India
- patent licensing India
- Patent Litigation
- Patent No. 190380
- Patent Novartis
- Patent novartis India
- patent of addition
- Patent office
- Patent Office India
- Patent Opposition
- Patent pharma
- PATENT PROSECUTION DETAILS MADE PUBLIC
- Patent Rights
- Patent Rules 2014
- Patent services
- Patented Drugs
- Patents filing India
- Patents in India
- Patents India
- PCT filing in India
- PCT filing India
- PCT filing requirements
- pct member countries in Asia
- PCT national phase application
- pct national phase application in India
- PCT national phase Applications in India
- PCT national phase filing
- PCT to cover 144 countries
- permanent injunction rendition of accounts damages
- Pernod Ricard India Private Ltd
- Peter Scot case
- PH Kurian IAS
- pharma patent India
- pharma patents India
- Post Grant Opposition
- Pre Grant Opposition
- prerequisite for Madrid filing
- Previous Registrant of Design can file Infringement suit against subsequent Registrant
- previous registration in foreign country not ground of cancellation in India
- principles of waiver and acquiescence under indian trademark law
- Prior publication of Design
- Procedure for hearing
- Property Right (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules
- Proposed amendments of PCT Regulations
- Publishing on website is not a communication
- Ram Kumar
- reasonable renumeration for compulsary license
- Recent amendments in Trademark Rules India
- Rectification of trademark
- Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154
- Registration of notice for suspension of clearance of imported infringed goods
- response to provisional refusal
- restoration after expiry
- revised fee for taiwan patent design
- Rule 38
- Rules 66 67 68 of Trademarks
- Rwanda and Qatar became PCT Contracting states
- SAB Group
- Samsung
- Sanjay Kaul
- Section 116 117A 117G Patents Act
- Section 134 of Trademarks Act
- Section 151 CPC
- Section 25 25(3) 25(4) 26 of Trademarks Act
- Sections 57 and 58 of the Patents Act
- small entity status
- software business method patents in India
- software patent India
- software patents in India
- software patents India
- South African Breweries International (Finance) B.V.
- standards and weight and measures packaged commodities rules
- Starr Ups
- Sudhir Kumar
- Sugar Free
- Suggestions to Draft Patent Amendment Rules 2013
- Supreme Court gave liberty to approch appropriate High Court to the whistle blower who challanged appointment of NABARD Chairman
- Supreme Court on infringement
- Supreme Court on patent
- surrogate advertising for alcohol
- Taiwan Patent Office
- Territorial Jurisdiction Trademark Infringement
- test of confusion and deception
- thailand patent law
- The Coca Cola Company
- The intellectual property rights (imported goods) enforcements rules 2007
- Trade dress
- trade mark India
- trade marks India
- Trademark (Amendment) Bill-2009
- Trademark Amendment Rules 2014
- Trademark Amendment Rules 2017
- Trademark amendments India
- Trademark Attorney India
- Trademark cases India
- Trademark Dispute
- Trademark fee in India
- Trademark filing in India
- trademark filing India
- Trademark filing requirements
- Trademark Hearing
- trademark in India
- Trademark India
- trademark infringment India
- Trademark Law in India
- Trademark law india
- trademark lawyers India
- Trademark litigation
- Trademark Opposition
- Trademark Oppostion infringment examination prosecution renewal India
- Trademark passing office
- Trademark prosecution India
- Trademark Registation in Myanmar; Myanmar Trademark Law; Intellectual Property Office (IPO) of Myanmar
- Trademark renewal after expiry
- Trademark restoration
- Trademark Rules 2014
- Trademarks
- trademarks in India
- Trademarks India
- Tradmark litigation India
- United Volunteers Association
- USPTO
- UVA
- Waiver of rights
- Well known mark declaration process
- whats new under copyright rules 2013
- WIPO
- www.cokestudio.in
- Zimmermann Patent for Imatinib
No comments:
Post a Comment