The Coca-Cola Company v. Mr. Subhash Chand
$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 247/2023 & I.A. 2987/2024 THE COCA-COLA COMPANY ..... Plaintiff Through:
Ms. Anuradha Salhotra and Mr.
Aman Venugopal, Advs.
versus MR. SUBHASH CHAND ..... Defendant Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
O R D E R
% 07.02.2024 I.A. 2987/2024 (under Order VIII Rule 10, CPC) 1.
This application has been filed under Order VIII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") on behalf of the plaintiff seeking a decree in absence of defendant's written statement. It was noted in the previous order of this Court dated 9th January, 2024 that the right to file written statement of the defendant has been closed and he may be proceeded ex-parte. There has been no response by the defendant in the applications or the plaint. Accordingly, this application is pressed seeking a decree. 2.
The suit had been filed by plaintiff seeking decree of permanent injunction against defendant and all those acting on its behalf from selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, directly or indirectly dealing in any goods bearing the impugned trademark 'KENLEY' or any other trademark identically or similar to the plaintiff's trademark 'KINLEY'. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
3.
Plaintiff, i.e., the Coca-Cola Company is a corporation organised and existing under the laws of State of Delaware, U.S.A. and is the registered owner of trademark 'KINLEY'. Present suit had been filed in relation to misuse of the mark 'KINLEY', , ("KINLEY Marks"), the distinctive bottle shape ("Danube bottle shape") and the label / ("Two Drop design label").
4.
Grievance of plaintiff pertains to use by defendant of the mark 'KENLEY' which was identical to the plaintiff's marks being sold in the bottle of which the trade dress and shape was virtually identical to the distinctive Danube bottle shape identical to the Two Drop design label use by the plaintiff. Comparison of the products is as under: The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
5.
Plaintiff claims that they have obtained the following registrations for their 'KINLEY' marks:
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
6.
An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted by this Court on 27th April, 2023 in favour of the plaintiff. Counsel had appeared on behalf of the defendant on subsequent dates. However, no further appearance was noted since the last few hearings.
7.
Accordingly, plaintiff will be entitled to the judgment and decree in The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
their favour, as per provisions of Order VIII Rule 10, CPC. 8.
Since the pleas of the plaintiff stands unrebutted, the suit stands decreed in terms of Prayers (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the plaint, extracted as under:- i.
Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant, its Directors, authorized representatives, successors, franchisees, licensees, distributors, assignees, agents, and anyone acting for and/ or on its behalf from selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, and directly or indirectly dealing in any goods bearing the trade mark KENLEY and/or any other trade mark identical or similar to the Plaintiffs well-known KINLEY Mark as a trade mark/part of a trade mark, trade name/part of a trade name, domain name/part of a domain name and/or in any other manner whatsoever, which would amount to infringement of the Plaintiffs registered trade mark;
ii.
Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant, its Directors, authorized representatives, successors, franchisees, licensees, distributors, assignees, agents, and anyone acting for and/ or on its behalf from selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, and directly or indirectly dealing in any goods bearing the trade mark KENLEY and/or any other trade mark identical or similar to the Plaintiffs well-known KINLEY Mark as a trade mark/part of a trade mark, trade name/part of a trade name, domain name/part of a domain name and/or in any other manner whatsoever, which would amount to passing off of the Plaintiffs trade mark/products;
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
iii.
Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant, its Directors, authorized representatives, successors, franchisees, licensees, distributors, assignees, agents, and anyone acting for and/ or on its behalf, from selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, and directly or indirectly dealing in any goods bearing the Impugned Trade Dress, bottle shape, label and/or any other trade dress/ bottle shape/ label identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs registered DANUBE BOTTLE shape and the TWO DROP design label / and/or any other label /packaging/bottle shape/ Trade Dress identical or deceptively similar to KINLEY trade dress/ bottle shape/ label in any manner whatsoever;
iv.
An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their directors, proprietors, promoters, agents, servants, distributors and any other person(s) acting for and on behalf of the Defendants from selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, and directly or indirectly dealing in any goods, bearing the Plaintiffs original artistic work in the TWO DROP design label under which the Plaintiff sells their products bearing the wellThe authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
known brand KINLEY, together with its distinctive elements or any imitation thereof in any manner whatsoever amounting to infringement of the Plaintiff's copyright;
9.
Further, it has been pointed out by the counsel for the plaintiff that, as per directions of this Court on 27th April, 2023, a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the premises of the defendant at M/s Rawat Water Udyog 1, Near Devi Ka Mandir, Bahabalpur, Faridabad, Haryana, 121004 to inventorise and seize all infringing goods and hand them over to the defendant on superdari. Local Commissioner's Report dated 8th May, 2023 notes that a large amount of inventory was seized and deposited on superdari with the defendant.
10.
In view of the decree which is being passed, it is directed that the Authorized Representative of plaintiff and defendant, along with counsel for the parties shall visit the defendant's premises and take delivery of the goods which were given on superdari by the Local Commissioner and will proceed to destroy the same in accordance with applicable norms/rules for disposal of such materials.
11.
A copy of this order shall be supplied to the defendant, if so requested. 12.
Assistance of the SHO of the local police station within whose jurisdiction the defendant's premises lie may also be taken, if so required, by the Authorized Representative of the plaintiff. 13.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
14.
Accordingly, the present suit is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
15.
The next date of hearing stands cancelled.
16.
Dasti.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
17.
Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J FEBRUARY 7, 2024/MK/sc The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.