Case Analysis: Allied Blenders & Distillers Private. Ltd. v. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Private. Ltd

Allied Blenders & Distillers Private. Ltd. v. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Private. Ltd CS (OS) No. 2589 of 2013
Facts: The Plaintiff, M/s Allied Blenders & Distillers Private Limited deals in the manufacture and sale of an Indian Made Foreign Liquor, Officer’s Choice which is one of the most known trademarks of the plaintiff company and has thus acquired a goodwill for its premium quality, distinctive packaging and pleasant taste and flavour. While, the defendant, Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Private Limited is also engaged in the business of blending, production and sale of a similar kind & type of alcoholic beverage named, “Collector’s Choice”. Now, the plaintiff, M/s Allied Blenders & Distillers Private Limited instituted the suit demanding permanent injunction preventing the Defendant from sale, distribution, advertisement or business of particularly that alcoholic beverage, namely the one carrying the trademark, “Collector’s Choice” fraudulently similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark, “Officer’s Choice”, infringing the latter’s registered trademark. Further, the plaintiff also claimed that the defendant was taking unfair advantage by passing off the latter’s good as those of the former. While on other hand, the Defendant claimed that Plaintiff does not possess any exclusive right over the application of the word, “Choice” particularly. Furthermore, according to the defendant, the plaintiff cannot claim monopoly over the word, “choice” which is a common dictionary word.

Question of Law: Whether the trademark used by Shree Nath Liquor is fraudulently similar to the M/s Allied Blenders & Distillers Private Limited and whether there is any probability of confusion between the two trademarks?

Judgement: A prima facie case was found in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the ingredients of irreversible damage and balance of comfort is taken into consideration. The court emphasised upon the fact that the application of the trademark by the defendant is not for a much long time, while the damage to the plaintiff by allowing the defendant to apply the trademark during the pendency of the matter in the court would be irremediable. However, the Hon’ble Court clearly held that the prescribed test of, ‘infringement’ in cases of a trademark or mark having fraudulent similarity with the registered trademark and chances of confusion between them was test of possibility of the goods under the questionable trademark being sold by the intended purchasers, as the goods previously purchased by them. The court further said that a trademark devoid of anything else was simply the face of the good which helped consumers to recognize or identify the same. now, such identification was dependent upon the memory of the consumer, which is not photogenic in nature but is imperfect.
Now in order to prove the matter for infringement of trademark, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show that the significant feature of the trademark has been taken by the defendant from former’s registered trademark. The court lastly said that, once the mark is registered in favour of the plaintiff, the same acquires exclusive and valuable rights by reason of such registration.
Authored By: Adv. Anant Sharma & Aniket Pandey