Allowed

The Coca-Cola Company v. Mr. Subhash Chand

Delhi HC7 Feb 2024CS(COMM)/247/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi, in an ex-parte application, decreed a suit filed by the Coca-Cola Company against Mr. Subhash Chand. Due to the defendant's default, the Court granted the plaintiff the relief of permanent injunction regarding the KINLEY trademark, bottle shape, and trade dress, and ordered the destruction of seized infringing goods.

What did the court decide?

Decree passed in favor of plaintiff; permanent injunction against sale/dealing of goods bearing KENLEY mark or similar trade dress; order to destroy seized infringing goods.

The Coca-Cola Company Vs Mr. Subhash Chand — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~37

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 247/2023 & I.A. 2987/2024

¶4

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY

¶5

..... Plaintiff

¶6

Through: Ms. Anuradha Salhotra and Mr. Aman Venugopal, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

MR. SUBHASH CHAND ..... Defendant

¶9

Through:

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶12

O R D E R % 07.02.2024

¶13

I.A. 2987/2024 (under Order VIII Rule 10, CPC)

¶14

This application has been filed under Order VIII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”) on behalf of the plaintiff seeking a decree in absence of defendant’s written statement. It was noted in the previous order of this Court dated 9^th January, 2024 that the right to file written statement of the defendant has been closed and he may be proceeded ex-parte . There has been no response by the defendant in the applications or the plaint. Accordingly, this application is pressed seeking a decree. 2. The suit had been filed by plaintiff seeking decree of permanent injunction against defendant and all those acting on its behalf from selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, directly or indirectly dealing in any goods bearing the impugned trademark ‘KENLEY’ or any other trademark identically or similar to the plaintiff’s trademark ‘KINLEY’ .

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2024 at 14:29:41

¶16

Plaintiff, i.e., the Coca-Cola Company is a corporation organised and existing under the laws of State of Delaware, U.S.A. and is the registered owner of trademark ‘KINLEY’ . Present suit had been filed in relation to

¶17

misuse of the mark ‘KINLEY’ , , ( “KINLEY

¶18

Marks” ), the distinctive bottle shape

¶19

( “Danube

¶20

bottle shape” ) and the label /

¶21

(“ Two Drop design label ”).

¶22

Grievance of plaintiff pertains to use by defendant of the mark ‘KENLEY’ which was identical to the plaintiff’s marks being sold in the bottle of which the trade dress and shape was virtually identical to the distinctive Danube bottle shape identical to the Two Drop design label use by the plaintiff. Comparison of the products is as under:

¶23

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶26

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2024 at 14:29:41

¶27

Plaintiff claims that they have obtained the following registrations for their ‘KINLEY’ marks:

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶30

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2024 at 14:29:41

¶31

An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted by this Court on 27^th April, 2023 in favour of the plaintiff. Counsel had appeared on behalf of the defendant on subsequent dates. However, no further appearance was noted since the last few hearings.

¶32

Accordingly, plaintiff will be entitled to the judgment and decree in

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶35

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2024 at 14:29:41

¶36

their favour, as per provisions of Order VIII Rule 10, CPC.

¶37

Since the pleas of the plaintiff stands unrebutted, the suit stands decreed in terms of Prayers (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the plaint, extracted as under:-

¶38

i. Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant, its Directors, authorized representatives, successors, franchisees, licensees, distributors, assignees, agents, and anyone acting for and/ or on its behalf from selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, and directly or indirectly dealing in any goods bearing the trade mark KENLEY and/or any other trade mark identical or similar to the Plaintiffs well-known KINLEY Mark as a trade mark/part of a trade mark, trade name/part of a trade name, domain name/part of a domain name and/or in any other manner whatsoever, which would amount to infringement of the Plaintiffs registered trade mark;

¶39

ii. Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant, its Directors, authorized representatives, successors, franchisees, licensees, distributors, assignees, agents, and anyone acting for and/ or on its behalf from selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, and directly or indirectly dealing in any goods bearing the trade mark KENLEY and/or any other trade mark identical or similar to the Plaintiffs well-known KINLEY Mark as a trade mark/part of a trade mark, trade name/part of a trade name, domain name/part of a domain name and/or in any other manner whatsoever, which would amount to passing off of the Plaintiffs trade mark/products;

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2024 at 14:29:41

¶42

iii. Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant, its Directors, authorized representatives, successors, franchisees, licensees, distributors, assignees, agents, and anyone acting for and/ or on its behalf, from selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, and directly or indirectly dealing in any goods bearing the Impugned Trade Dress, bottle shape, label and/or any other trade dress/ bottle shape/ label identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs registered DANUBE BOTTLE shape

¶43

and the TWO DROP design label

¶44

¶45

and/or any other label /packaging/bottle shape/ Trade Dress identical or deceptively similar to KINLEY trade dress/ bottle shape/ label in any manner whatsoever;

¶46

iv. An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their directors, proprietors, promoters, agents, servants, distributors and any other person(s) acting for and on behalf of the Defendants from selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, and directly or indirectly dealing in any goods, bearing the Plaintiffs original artistic work in the TWO DROP design label under which the Plaintiff sells their products bearing the well-

¶47

¶48

known brand KINLEY, together with its distinctive elements or any imitation thereof in any manner whatsoever amounting to infringement of the Plaintiff's copyright;

¶49

Further, it has been pointed out by the counsel for the plaintiff that, as per directions of this Court on 27^th April, 2023, a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the premises of the defendant at M/s Rawat Water Udyog 1, Near Devi Ka Mandir, Bahabalpur, Faridabad, Haryana, 121004 to inventorise and seize all infringing goods and hand them over to the defendant on superdari . Local Commissioner’s Report dated 8^th May, 2023 notes that a large amount of inventory was seized and deposited on superdari with the defendant.

¶50

In view of the decree which is being passed, it is directed that the Authorized Representative of plaintiff and defendant, along with counsel for the parties shall visit the defendant’s premises and take delivery of the goods which were given on superdari by the Local Commissioner and will proceed to destroy the same in accordance with applicable norms/rules for disposal of such materials.

¶51

A copy of this order shall be supplied to the defendant, if so requested. 12. Assistance of the SHO of the local police station within whose jurisdiction the defendant’s premises lie may also be taken, if so required, by the Authorized Representative of the plaintiff.

¶52

Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

¶53

Accordingly, the present suit is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

¶54

The next date of hearing stands cancelled.

¶55

Dasti .

¶56

¶57

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶58

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶59

FEBRUARY 7, 2024/MK/sc

¶60

This is a digitally signed order.

¶61

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2024 at 14:29:41

The Coca-Cola Company v. Mr. Subhash Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Coca-Cola Company v. Mr. Subhash Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Rathi & Ors. Vs Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited & Anr.

Danfoss a/S Vs Manik Engineers India

3M Innovative Properties Company & Anr. Vs M/S Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

T M 25 Holding B v Vs Anmol Kadam & Ors.

Ajay Kapoor Vs Dsv Air and Sea Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

M/S United Sales Corporation Vs Bgm Telecommunication Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Geneva Laboratories Limited & Anr. Vs Mr. Jay Khodiyar & Ors.

M/S Valecha Engineering Ltd. Vs the Govt of Nctd & Ors.

Anil Rathi & Ors. Vs Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited & Anr.

Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ashok Kumar / John Doe & Ors.

Alphavax Inc. Vs Controller of Patents

Republic Technologies (Na) Llc Vs Vipin Pathak Trading as M/S Pathak Impex and M/S Pathak Traders

Alstone International Vs Viola Decoratives Pvt. Ltd.

Shree Sant Kripa Intellectual, 7, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Puna, Maharashtra Vs Glodon Software Co. Ltd. 336-B Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana