Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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