Libertatem Magazine

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

Contents of this Page

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.



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, 

“ 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 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.



About the Author