SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana 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