2023 years 9 month 6 day, India's Supreme Court has issued an important order in a trademark dispute that has gripped the legal and corporate world. The case involves "Blenders Pride" Trademark owner Pernod Ricard India Pte LTD (Pernod Ricard India Private Limited) with "Royal Challenge American Pride" The trademark owner, United Spirits (United Spirits) Between trademark disputes. The point of contention is 2 Used in the name of an alcoholic beverage "Pride" And allegations of trademark infringement.

The dispute stems from Pernod Ricard's claims, The United Spirits Company in its "Royal Challenge American Pride" Use in brand "Pride" The term may cause confusion and deceive consumers. Pernod Ricard initially filed an infringement and passing off suit with the Mohali District Court. however, District court 2022 years 1 month 17 The order denied the plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction. Pernod Ricard then appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Courts, But the appeal met the same fate, High court 2023 years 3 month 21 Make a ruling on the day, The district court's decision is upheld.

Preliminary judgment of the High Court

Before it goes to the Supreme Court, The case was heard in the Punjab and Haryana High Courts. In its judgment, the High Court rejected Pernod Ricard's appeal, adjudication "Blenders Pride" and "Royal Challenge American Pride" this 2 The logos are not alike, Not enough to cause consumer confusion. The High Court cited it in its judgment "Trademark law" The first 15 Articles and ordinances 17 Provision of article, That is, part of a trademark must be registered separately in order to be considered an infringement. In the present case, Pernod Ricard has won "Blenders Pride" Trademark registration. On account of "Pride" Not independently registered, So Pernod Ricard relied only on generic words "Pride" The argument for infringement was not accepted.

The court also emphasized the difference between objecting to a trademark and applying for its cancellation. An objection can only be made while the trademark application is pending, Objections are allowed during the application process. By contrast, Revocation applies to a trademark that has already been approved for registration. The court rejected the argument that the application for dismissal should be considered an objection, Because they operate in different areas of law.

Counterfeiting and irreparable loss／Weigh the advantages and disadvantages

The High Court found Pernod Ricard's claim of passing off unconvincing, Emphasis on use "Pride" The term is unlikely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers, Especially considering that 2 Both companies have established a good reputation. therefore, The court rejected Pernod Ricard's claim that they would suffer damages that money could not recover. After weighing the pros and cons, The court noted that, 2 Both companies are reputable competitors in the alcohol industry. Granting Pernod temporary relief would disrupt public markets, And may lead to monopolistic trade activities.

The Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides, The challenged court order is to establish temporary arrangements for the duration of the proceedings, Shall not affect in any way the final decision of the proceedings. therefore, The court refused to interfere with these orders. The court notes, The lawsuit has been pending 3 years, Not even the question has been decided. The court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, in 6 The trial will be completed within months.

The court clarified that, A decision on an application for an interim injunction is made only to protect the interests of the parties to the pending proceedings. The court emphasized, The trial should proceed as soon as possible, Instead of spending time on intermediate applications. This will protect the plaintiff, So that it does not have to worry that other courts might cite the challenged judgment in a case of a similar nature. The court also mentioned, When the trial court makes a final decision based on the evidence recorded, Will not be subject to comments made at the intermediate stage (Whether it's a trial court or a high court opinion) Influence of.

The established principle of a temporary injunction is based on 3 A key element protects the rights of parties: Prima facie evidence, Weigh the pros and cons and there is irreparable damage. The court is not required to conduct a mini-trial in the interim injunction application process. These temporary injunctions are significant in intellectual property litigation in India, The Supreme Court's ruling underscores the importance of fast-tracking intellectual property cases, This is an order that all Indian courts must follow. (Be compiled from www. lexology. com)

TRANSLATORS: Rason group　proofread: Liu Peng



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.