Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

Must Read

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2)...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v....

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V....

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S....

Follow us

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing, sale, etc. of alcohol. This was under the mark ‘VINTAGE MOMENTS’. (Radico Khaitan vs Vintage Distillers)

 

Brief Facts

Radico Khaitan (Plaintiff) claimed to be one of India’s largest liquor companies that sells gin, vodka, and others. This was done under the trademark ‘MAGIC MOMENTS’. Plaintiff stated that they were the registered owner of the words ‘MAGIC MOMENTS’ with its variants. They were also the owner of a number of device marks with the mark ‘MAGIC MOMENTS’.

In the year 2019-20, the sales in India were Rs 1,71,238.26 lakh, and overseas were Rs 2,169.28 lakh. Advocates Anirudh Bakhru, Ishani Chandra, Ankit Rastogi, Ayush Puri, Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Ritika Sharma represented the Plaintiff.  Advocate Ankit Popli appeared for the Defendant.

 

Contentions

It was Plaintiff’s grievance that Vintage Distillers (Defendant) adopted the mark ‘VINTAGE MOMENTS’ for identical goods. They added that the Trademark Registry had already objected to its registration and as per the Registry, the pre-dominant marks registered with the word ‘MOMENTS’ belonged to the Plaintiff.

Few marks registered otherwise had either been abandoned or were on proposed to be used a basis for which, learned counsel for the plaintiff states, that as and when required action would be taken if necessary.

 

Court’s Observation and Decision

A Single Judge Bench of Mukta Gupta heard the case. The Court was informed that the Defendant had even applied for the registration of the mark ‘VINTAGE MOMENTS’ for alcoholic beverages including wines, spirits, whisky, rum, vodka, gin, and brandy. Considering the averments in the plaint and the documents before it, the Court opined that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case in its favour. Delhi High Court said, 

“..in case no ad-interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff will suffer and irreparable loss. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff.”

Consequently, an ad-interim injunction was passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant until the next date of hearing. The Court also issued the summons in the trademark infringement suit.

The next hearing is on February 17. 

Click here to view the original judgement


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v. The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai. was...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V. Asha heard the case of...

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S. Prema v. The Superintendent of...

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order and states “Liberty of a Citizen cannot be taken away in the Absence of Lawyer”

In the case of Parveen v. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “a citizen’s liberty cannot be taken away”. This observation...

Revised Gratuity Ceiling Notified by Central Government Applicable To All Establishments Irrespective of Whether Controlled by the State or Centre: Tripura High Court

In the case of Sri Tapas Guha vs Tripura Tea Development Corporation Ltd. and others, a single-judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Akil Kureshi...

Madras High Court Dismisses Tax Case Appeal by OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd.

The OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was filed against an order passed...

Jharkhand High Court Disposes of Criminal Revision Petition Against the Judgment Passed by the Learned Sessions Judge With Modification

A criminal revision petition against the Judgment dated 23.07.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.49/2014 was...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -