Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two cross-suits between Bristol Bakery (plaintiff in one suit) and Grupo Bimbo S.A.B. DE C.V. and its affiliates (defendants in the first suit and plaintiffs in the second). Bristol Bakery, a partnership firm based in Mumbai, filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Grupo Bimbo, a Mexican company, for using the mark 'Bimbo' for bakery products. Bristol Bakery claimed to have used the mark 'Bristol' since 1995 and argued that 'Bimbo' was deceptively similar. Grupo Bimbo, on the other hand, claimed prior use and registration of 'Bimbo' globally and in India since 2009, and filed a counter-suit seeking to restrain Bristol Bakery from using 'Bristol' or any similar mark. The court analyzed the marks and found them to be phonetically and visually dissimilar. It noted that 'Bristol' is a two-syllable word starting with 'Bris', while 'Bimbo' is a two-syllable word starting with 'Bim'. The court also observed that the defendant had prior use and registration of 'Bimbo' for bakery products, and the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient prior use or goodwill in the mark 'Bristol'. The court held that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for interim injunction, and the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendant. Consequently, the court dismissed Bristol Bakery's interim application and allowed Grupo Bimbo's interim application, restraining Bristol Bakery from using the mark 'Bristol' or any deceptively similar mark.
Headnote
A) Trademark Law - Infringement - Deceptive Similarity - Sections 29, 134 Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The court examined whether the plaintiff's mark 'Bristol' and the defendant's mark 'Bimbo' are deceptively similar. Held that the marks are phonetically and visually dissimilar, and the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement (Paras 1-10). B) Trademark Law - Passing Off - Prior Use - Section 135 Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The court considered the claim of passing off based on prior use. Held that the defendant had prior use and registration of the mark 'Bimbo' for bakery products, and the plaintiff's use of 'Bristol' was not shown to be prior or extensive enough to establish goodwill (Paras 11-20). C) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Balance of Convenience - Order 39 Rules 1, 2 CPC - The court assessed the balance of convenience. Held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendant, as the plaintiff had not made out a strong prima facie case and the defendant's business would be severely affected by an injunction (Paras 21-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark 'Bimbo' or any deceptively similar mark, and whether the balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision
The court dismissed Bristol Bakery's Interim Application (L) No. 13958 of 2023 and allowed Grupo Bimbo's Interim Application No. 5609 of 2025, restraining Bristol Bakery from using the mark 'Bristol' or any deceptively similar mark.
Law Points
- Trademark Infringement
- Passing Off
- Deceptive Similarity
- Prior Use
- Interim Injunction
- Balance of Convenience
- Prima Facie Case
