Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement Suit Involving Beer Labels. Plaintiff's mark 'HAYWARDS 5000' held to be infringed by defendant's use of '5000' in similar label, as numeral is an essential feature not descriptive of beer strength.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff, Skol Breweries Limited, filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against the defendants, Som Distilleries & Breweries Limited and Shaw Wallace & Company Limited. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the label mark 'HAYWARDS 5000 SUPERSTRONG BEER' and the word mark 'HAYWARDS 5000', used for strong beer since 1983. The numeral '5000' is a dominant and essential feature of the mark and is not descriptive of the beer's character or quality. The second defendant, Shaw Wallace, had adopted the trademark 'Haywards 5000' in 1983 and got it registered in 1995 with a condition that registration gives no right to the exclusive use of all descriptive matters on the label. The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant, Som Distilleries, was using a similar label with the numeral '5000' for its beer, causing infringement and passing off. The court considered the issue of whether the defendant's use of '5000' infringes the plaintiff's mark. The plaintiff argued that '5000' is an essential feature and its use by the defendant creates confusion. The defendant contended that '5000' is descriptive of strength and that the registration condition limits exclusivity. The court analyzed that the numeral '5000' is a fancy numeral and not descriptive, and the condition does not apply to essential features. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, and the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff. An interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using the mark '5000' or any deceptively similar mark.

Headnote

A) Trademark Law - Infringement - Essential Feature - The plaintiff's registered trademark 'HAYWARDS 5000' includes the numeral '5000' as a dominant and essential feature. The defendant's use of the numeral '5000' in a similar label for beer constitutes infringement, as the numeral is not descriptive of the character or quality of the beer. (Paras 1-3)

B) Trademark Law - Passing Off - Deceptive Similarity - The defendant's label is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's label, likely to cause confusion among consumers. The plaintiff has established a prima facie case of passing off. (Paras 1-4)

C) Trademark Law - Registration - Conditions and Limitations - The registration of the plaintiff's mark includes a condition that registration gives no right to the exclusive use of all descriptive matters on the label. However, the numeral '5000' is not descriptive and is an essential feature, so the condition does not bar the infringement claim. (Para 3)

D) Interim Relief - Balance of Convenience - The balance of convenience is in favor of the plaintiff, as the defendant's continued use would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. An interim injunction is granted. (Paras 4-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the defendant's use of the numeral '5000' in its beer label infringes the plaintiff's registered trademark 'HAYWARDS 5000' and constitutes passing off.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Interim injunction granted restraining the defendants from using the mark '5000' or any deceptively similar mark in relation to beer.

Law Points

  • Trademark infringement
  • passing off
  • deceptive similarity
  • essential feature
  • numeral as trademark
  • registration conditions
  • descriptive matter
  • interim injunction
  • balance of convenience
  • irreparable loss
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011:BHC-OS:12191

Notice of Motion No. 828 of 2007 in Suit No. 603 of 2007

2011-09-05

S.J. Vazifdar, J.

2011:BHC-OS:12191

Mr. D.D. Madon, senior counsel with Mr. Himanshu Kane, Mr. Hiren Kamod and Ms. Mushraf Bukhari i/b H.W. Kane for the Plaintiff. Mr. Arif Y. Bookwala, senior counsel with Mr. Anand Kumar i/b Anand Kumar & D. Jehangir for Defendant No.1.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for trademark infringement and passing off.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff sought interim injunction restraining defendants from using the mark '5000' or any deceptively similar mark.

Filing Reason

Plaintiff alleged that defendant No.1's use of '5000' in its beer label infringes plaintiff's registered trademark 'HAYWARDS 5000' and constitutes passing off.

Issues

Whether the defendant's use of the numeral '5000' infringes the plaintiff's registered trademark 'HAYWARDS 5000'. Whether the defendant's use constitutes passing off.

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiff argued that '5000' is a dominant and essential feature of its mark and is not descriptive, and defendant's use causes confusion. Defendant contended that '5000' is descriptive of beer strength and the registration condition limits exclusivity.

Ratio Decidendi

The numeral '5000' is an essential feature of the plaintiff's trademark and is not descriptive of the character or quality of the beer. The defendant's use of the same numeral in a similar label is likely to cause confusion and constitutes infringement and passing off. The balance of convenience favors the plaintiff.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of a label mark comprising of the words 'HAYWARDS 5000 SUPERSTRONG BEER' within a label of which 'HAYWARDS 5000' forms a dominant and essential feature. The numeral 5000 is a fancy numeral in the context of the trademark and does not have any reference to the character, quality or the strength of the beer.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed Suit No. 603 of 2007 for infringement and passing off. The present Notice of Motion No. 828 of 2007 was taken out for interim relief. The court heard arguments and delivered judgment on 5th September 2011.

Acts & Sections

  • Trade Marks Act, 1999:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes FIR in POCSO Case Due to Lack of Sexual Intent — Teacher's Hug of Student Not Constituting Sexual Assault Under Section 12 of POCSO Act. The court held that a mere hug without sexual intent does not amount to sexual ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement Suit Involving Beer Labels. Plaintiff's mark 'HAYWARDS 5000' held to be infringed by defendant's use of '5000' in similar label, as numeral is an essential feature not descriptive ...