Translate in another language

Famous Trademark Battles in Indian Courts

Famous Trademark Battles in Indian Courts
audio-thumbnail
Listen to the article
0:00
/9:17

In the world of business, a trademark is more than just a unique symbol or logo - it's a brand's identity. It's what sets a company apart in a crowded market. But what happens when two companies argue over similar trademarks? These battles show us how important it is for companies to protect their trademark and highlight the complexities and challenges associated with trademark rights.

The Indian courts have witnessed several high-profile cases where renowned companies fiercely fought to protect their valuable brands. This article looks at some big trademark fights that have happened in India.

Financial Times Ltd. v Times Publishing House

Back in 2013, there was a big legal fight in India between two companies: Financial Times Limited (FTL) and Times Publishing House (TPH). FTL had filed a Special Leave Petition with the Supreme Court in 2011, seeking an adjournment of the appeal proceedings in the Karnataka High Court. The Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, granted the adjournment to ensure that the appeal and the validity of each party's trademark were determined before any related trademark appeal in the Karnataka High Court.

This trademark dispute shed light on the challenges faced by foreign companies attempting to enter the Indian market. FTL, after receiving government approval for foreign direct investment in printed publications, established an Indian entity called The Financial Times (Pvt.) Ltd. and applied to bring out facsimile editions of the Financial Times. However, TPH immediately initiated legal proceedings, leading to a stay on FTL's facsimile editions. FTL moved the Supreme Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court.

FTL's lawyer believed that TPH's tactics of prolonging the litigation for 19 years were aimed at delaying FTL's entry into the Indian market and preventing competition. The case drew attention due to the significant expenses incurred by both parties, totalling around Rs. 30 crore in legal fees.

Swiss government agency wins rare trademark case in Indian court

In a unique case, Switzerland's defence procurement office emerged victorious in a trademark dispute in an Indian court. This is a rare occurrence where a governmental agency from Switzerland engaged in a legal battle with a private company in India. The trademark law aims to prevent customer confusion and protect businesses from misrepresentations in commerce. If two companies have unrelated goods or services and operate in different distribution channels, their trademarks generally do not infringe upon each other. However, if a mark is deceptive or likely to cause confusion, it violates the Trade Marks Act. In a case involving an Indian clothing manufacturer using the mark "Swiss Military," the Delhi High Court ruled that the mark, featuring a white cross on a black background and the words "Swiss Military," could mislead consumers into thinking the products were made in Switzerland. The court concluded that the mark constituted a false trade description, invalid for registration under the Trademarks Act. The use of the mark would cause confusion among the public, leading to its rejection.

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals

In the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals, the issue at hand was the trademark dispute between the two pharmaceutical companies. Cadila Healthcare had launched a medicine named "Falcitab," while Cadila Pharmaceuticals introduced a similar medicine called "Falcigo" for the treatment of cerebral malaria. Cadila Healthcare filed a lawsuit against Cadila Pharmaceuticals, alleging that the use of the mark "FALCITAB" by the defendant was deceptively similar to their own mark "FALCIGO." They sought an injunction to prevent Cadila Pharmaceuticals from using a confusingly similar mark that could lead to consumer confusion.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasised that even though the drugs would be prescribed by medical practitioners and sold directly to hospitals, the potential for confusion between the two marks could not be ignored. The court outlined certain principles to be considered when determining whether a mark is deceptively similar, including analysing the nature of the marks (word marks, composite marks, etc.), assessing ideological and phonetic similarity, evaluating the similarity in the nature, performance, and character of the applicants, and identifying the class of consumers.

Ultimately, the court's ruling favoured Cadila Healthcare, recognising the importance of considering the trademark in its entirety and the potential for confusion among consumers.

The Coca-Cola Company v. Bisleri International Pvt. Limited

The landmark case of The Coca-Cola Company v. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd is involved in a trademark dispute between the two beverage giants. Bisleri International, known for bottled water, was the defendant, while The Coca-Cola Company, a global leader in soft drinks, was the plaintiff. The dispute revolved around the trademark "Mazza," which both companies used for their mango-flavoured beverages.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's use of the "Mazza" trademark infringed upon their rights. They argued that Bisleri's export of the product with the trademark constituted trademark infringement in the exporting nation. The Delhi High Court heard the case and addressed several issues, including jurisdiction, trademark infringement, entitlement to a permanent injunction, and the involvement of third-party companies like Verma International.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of The Coca-Cola Company. It granted a permanent injunction against Bisleri, prohibiting them from using the "Mazza" trademark. This case emphasised the importance of trademark protection in the intellectual property rights landscape and set a precedent for similar disputes in India.

Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories

In the case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, the dispute revolved around the use of the trademark "Navaratna" by both the appellant and the respondent. The respondent, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, had registered the trademarks "Navaratna" and "Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories" prior to 1937. The appellant, engaged in the preparation of ayurvedic products, used the name "NavaratnaKalpa Pharmacy" for his business and sought to register "NavaratnaKalpa" as a trademark. The respondent opposed the registration and also filed a suit for injunction against the appellant, alleging infringement and passing off of their goods. The district court granted a limited injunction in favour of the respondent, which was upheld by the high court. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that "Navaratna" was not distinctive and that the differences in packaging negated any passing-off claims. However, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, concluding that the appellant's mark was deceptively similar to that of the respondent, and dismissed the appeals.

The trademark disputes discussed in India shed light on the crucial role trademark protection plays for businesses. The trademark battles witnessed in India serve as compelling reminders of the critical role that trademarks play in shaping a company's identity and market position. These legal disputes underscore the need for businesses to vigorously defend their trademarks in order to maintain their uniqueness and competitive edge. Moreover, these disputes illuminate the intricacies and hurdles of navigating the trademark terrain in a global and densely populated marketplace.

💡
This IP Wave Short Essay is written by Shivani. Reviewed by Aurko. Technical Assistance by Khushi. Thank you for reading. 

Great! You’ve successfully signed up.

Welcome back! You've successfully signed in.

You've successfully subscribed to IP Wave.

Success! Check your email for magic link to sign-in.

Success! Your billing info has been updated.

Your billing was not updated.