{"id":307439,"date":"2023-11-18T16:00:35","date_gmt":"2023-11-18T10:30:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=307439"},"modified":"2023-11-23T18:08:10","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T12:38:10","slug":"madhya-pradesh-high-court-refuses-to-pass-temporary-injunction-in-trademark-infringement-suit-scc-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/18\/madhya-pradesh-high-court-refuses-to-pass-temporary-injunction-in-trademark-infringement-suit-scc-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"Blenders Pride v. London Pride | \u201cNo prima facie case\u201d; Madhya Pradesh High Court refuses to pass temporary injunction in trademark infringement suit"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Madhya Pradesh High Court:<\/span> In an appeal challenging the rejection of the appellant-plaintiffs’ application for a temporary injunction, claiming errors in the evaluation of trademark similarity and the application of legal principles, a Division bench comprising of S. A. Dharmadhikari and Pranay Verma,*<\/span> JJ., examined the visual, phonetic, and structural aspects of the trademarks, highlighted differences in bottle shape, label patterns, and overall appearance and emphasised on the absence of prima facie similarity and ruled out trademark infringement. The Court found no visual, phonetic, or structural similarity between the marks, and there was no evidence of the plaintiff’s elements acquiring secondary meaning. The Court held that there was no prima facie case of trademark infringement.<\/p>\n

Brief Facts<\/p>\n

In the instant matter, the plaintiffs, engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing wines, liquors, and spirits, filed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r)<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (CPC) read with Section 13<\/a> of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015<\/a>. The appeal is preferred against the order dated 26-11-2020, where the Commercial Court, Indore, rejected the plaintiffs’ application for a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> of the CPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The alleged dispute revolves around the alleged infringement of the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks (‘Blenders Pride,’ ‘Imperial Blue,’ and ‘Seagram’s’) by the defendant’s product named ‘London Pride.’<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs filed an application for a temporary injunction, seeking to restrain the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or advertising ‘London Pride’ under trademarks similar to plaintiffs’ marks. The trial court rejected the application, emphasizing the dissimilarities in packaging, style, shape, and overall presentation between the two brands. The Trial Court held that the word ‘Pride’ was commonly used, and exclusivity could not be attributed to the plaintiffs. It concluded that no similarity existed that would deceive consumers.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs’ Contentions<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs claimed to be proprietors of registered trademarks, including ‘Blenders Pride’ since 1973 and ‘Imperial Blue’ since 1997. The defendant is accused of imitating the plaintiffs’ trademarks, causing confusion, and practicing misrepresentation and fraud. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, delivery of infringing materials, an account of profits, and damages amounting to one crore rupees.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in splitting the word ‘Pride’ for comparison, contravening Section 28(1)<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> and the overall similarity between the trademarks was not adequately considered. It was contended that the trial court did not apply the viewpoint of a consumer with an imperfect recollection, leading to an incorrect assessment. It was further contended that the defendant’s alleged dishonest adoption of registered trademarks constitutes an actionable tort, justifying a temporary injunction. Moreover, registration of copyright does not permit infringement of registered trademarks.<\/p>\n

Defendant’s Contentions<\/p>\n

The defendant asserted that the trial court’s decision was well-founded, emphasizing the lack of overall similarity between the trademarks. It was contended that mere prima facie case is insufficient; plaintiffs must prove actual damages or irreparable harm, which they failed to do. It was further argued that refusal of temporary injunction is justifiable since monetary compensation can remedy any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

Court’s Assessment<\/p>\n