Search
  • Sakshar Law Associates

Red Bull Ag V Bakewell Biscuits Pvt Ltd.

Updated: Jul 21


By

Sakshi Shairwal

Iesha Sharma



Introduction


The trademark infringement suit was filed in the High Court of Delhi by red Bull against restraining Bakewell Biscuits from authorized use of its mark that is deceptively similar this article formulates the case note on the judgment with a brief understanding of what a well-known mark.

Facts

The plaintiff is the company organized and incorporated under the laws of Switzerland. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary company of Red Bull Gmbh that is an internationally reputed as well as well-established value in manufacturing marketing energy soft drink Companies and other non-alcoholic beverages in the name of “the Red Bull mark”. The defendant company is Bakewell Biscuit Private Limited has started using the well-known Trademark of Red Bull. The infringement suit was filed in the High Court of Delhi.

Issues

The issued before the court

1. Whether there is an infringement of the trademark by the defendant using the trademark of Red Horse?

Summary of Arguments


The plaintiff contended that it is an international reputed well-known manufacturing mark and it has a Trademark for double bull Devices and single Bull Devices. Moreover, in India, the trademark “Red Bull” was specifically regarded as well known Trademark by the same court under the case of Red Bull AG V. Eswari & Ors, and it has also been mentioned under a well-Known Trademark that is maintained by TradeMark Register, and it has also acquired various registrations India.

Plaintiff agreed that the offender is using the mark “Red Horse” and “blue/ silver trapezoid Red Horse label” by the defendant that is identical and deceptively similar to that of the plaintive previously registered well-known Mark. Plaintiff contends that the Defendant mark was a mala-fide copy in offending the use of plaintiffs Mark and it has incorporated the device of two animals in charging positions with yellow backdrop/ Sandisk. The font size, and similar color combination mark is identical to that of the plaintiff that's full mark.

The plaintiff submits that through its internet investigation it was made aware that a candy manufacturing by the defendant was made under the mark of “Red Horse” and the persuade of the website www.bakewellbiscuits.co.in it was revealed that the defendant was prominently displayed on the mark on the website and taking the inquiries form the users over India and including Delhi.

It was also conducted by the plaintiff that Red Bull internally also claimed that despite the cease and desist notice made to the defendant there was no action taken by the defendant for the same.

Judgment

The court was in the favor of the plaintiff and claim that the plaintiff has successfully established a prima facie case in its favor. The High court ordered an ex Parte order in favor of Plaintiff by temporarily restraining the defendant from using the “Red Horse” mark. As the balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiff with if applicable laws because the plaintiff would be in irreparable loss if the Parte injunction is not granted. The High Court has listed this matter on 1st September 2021 for further discussion.

What is a Well-know mark?

The trademark has generally referred to the mark when it is distinguished from other Enterprises section 2(zb) of the Trademark Protection Act, 1999 defines the mark trademark as the mark that is capable of being represented by any graphic for the goods and services of one person from another. Whereas well or Trademark is a special Trademark which is defined under Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Trademark Protection Act, 1999 the section defines the well-known Trademark as the mark where the company has substantial to a section of the public that uses such goods or services from those companies. That while using those goods and services of that trademark would also be contented with the connection of the company’s trademark that renders such goods and services.

The trademark only protects the Goodwill of the company to specific geographical areas, whereas a well-known Trademark protects the same across the nation for all types of goods and services. Section 11(2) of Trademark Protection Act, 1999 where the provision is mentioned for the protection of well-known marks across all classes extends with the ambit protected across all the classes of goods and services. Under section 11(6) of the Trademark Protect Act, 1999 where the consideration of the factors for determining whether a Trademark is well known or not has been prescribed. It was adopted by Wipro in the year 1999 to protect the well-known mark from any misuse and infringements. Section 11(9) of the Trademark Protection Act, 1999 where the condition is not required for Trademark registration. This section specifies the purpose for granting the trademark with The trademark has been used in India, has been registered for registration, Trademark has been filed in India, etc. Section 11(10) of Trademark Protection Act, 1999 the application for the registrar, that in the case of dispute or infringed. The registrar must protect the interest of the well-known mark against which that of the identical one notice to be the ill intention the mala-fide motive of the opponent.

In the case of Rolex SA V. Alex Jewellery Private Limited and others, the defendant has been using the trademark of “Rolex” of the plaintiff for dealing with artificial jewelry. The plaintiff filed the suit action against the defendant to prevent its Trademark been used any further. The court held that plaintiff’s business was Rolex watch and the section of the public recognized a Trademark Rolex for its well-known Trademark, so the same significance of the people if the artificial jewelry with the same Trademark name might assume that artificial jewelry is also formed under the plaintiff business. The court declared the Rolex mark as the well-known mark and granted an injunction against the defendant.

In the case of Daimler Benz V. Hybo Hindustan, the defendant has been using the logo of the plaintiff word “Benz”. The plaintiff filed an injunction against the use of his logo. The court examines and recognizes Plaintiff’s logo as a well-known mark on the ground of the trans-border reputation and protecting the Goodwill of the company. The injunction order was granted against the defendant for using the logo.



The article first published on Lexology.com and the same can be accessed here.




For any information kindly reach out to us on saksharlawassociates@gmal.com







2 views0 comments