Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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