Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

The court awarded Rs 16 lakh damages to Cadbury for trademark infringement: Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


D.D:26-07-2022

The Delhi High Court has ordered an Indian company named Neeraj Food Products to pay nearly 16 lakh to the British confectionery company Cadbury for infringing its 'Cadbury Gems' trademark.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh remarked that almost everyone associates Cadbury Gems with their childhood and that its brand is well-known among both children and adults.

The court ruled that Cadbury's packaging is distinctive and that the company is the registered owner of the trademark 'Cadbury Gems' and the artistic character known as 'Gems Bond'

The judge added that there is no doubt that the defendant has violated Cadbury's rights.

"...chocolates are sold not only in large retail stores or outlets, but also in roadside shacks, paan shops, patri vendors, kirana stores, and stands in front of schools, etc. Therefore, there is a high likelihood of consumer confusion, especially considering that the product is marketed to children, as stated in the order.

Cadbury (now known as Mondelez India Foods Pvt Ltd) filed a trademark infringement suit against Neeraj Food Products in 2005, seeking a permanent injunction and damages.

On its product packaging, the defendant was allegedly using the trademarks "James Bond" and "Jamey Bond" with an image of chocolate buttons on the same colour background. The court was informed that the marks are confusingly and deceptively similar to Cadbury's.

In spite of the fact that the defendant had initially entered appearance, the suit later proceeded ex-parte, and the defendant did not file any documents to support their case, with the exception of a few raw invoices from 2001 and 2002.

The High Court determined that the Gems product is typically consumed by children and that the test in this instance is not absolute confusion.

Justice Singh stated that a comparison between the defendant's infringing product and the packaging of Cadbury's product leaves no doubt that the former is an exact copy of Gems.

"It is significant that these products are sold not only in larger packs, but also in smaller pillow packs, so the mark may not even be completely visible. Even the smallest selling unit of the Defendants' product, the pillow pack, can be purchased for between 1 and 5 rupees. Therefore, the product's appearance, layout, and colour combination play a significant role at the point of sale," the order states.

Justice Singh determined that not only did the defendant infringe on the plaintiff's trademark, but it also constituted passing off, and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to damages.

The court ordered Neeraj Food Products to pay Cadbury the actual amount of 15.86 lakh within three months.

Attorney Prakriti Vaishney represented Cadbury.

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PVT. LTD. AND ANR

Versus

NEERAJ FOOD PRODUCTS

Download Judgment

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/26-07-2022-Mondelez_India_Foods_Pvt_Ltd_and_Anr_v_Neeraj_Food_Products.pdf"]

Latest Legal News