TATA Sons Limited & Ors vs M/S Mayuri Beverages

,

Manmohan, J",

Since none has appeared for the defendant despite publication, it is proceeded ex-parte and the ad-interim injunction order dated 24th",

At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that in view of the judgment of this Court in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Satya Infra",

& Estates Pvt. Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 508, the present suit should be decreed qua the relief of injunction. The relevant portion of the said",

judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiff is reproduced hereinbelow:-,

“I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence in the form of,

affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the",

amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any",

additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being,

put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record. I have therefore heard the counsel for the plaintiffs,

on merits qua the relief of injunction.â€​,

Learned counsel for the plaintiff further states that he has instructions not to press for any relief other than the relief of permanent injunction and,

costs, as prayed for in para 55(i), (ii) and (iii) of the plaint.",

The relevant facts of the present case as pointed out by learned counsel for the plaintiff are as under:-,

A. The present suit has been instituted on behalf of the plaintiffs seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant from infringing and passing off,

its registered trademarks, from diluting and tarnishing its trademarks, including the reliefs of delivery up, rendition of accounts, damages and costs.",

B. The plaintiff no.1 company namely, Tata Sons Limited is derived from the surname of the plaintiff’s founder, Shri Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata",

which is a rare patronymic name possessing the distinctiveness of an invented word. The said plaintiff, for its own business activities and those of its",

group companies, subsidiaries and the companies promoted by it, has continuously and consistently been using the trademark/trade name",

‘TATA’ and its various permutations and combinations thereon, since its inception in the year 1917 whereas the use of the name/trade mark",

TATA by the predecessors-in-business of the plaintiff no.1 company dates back to the year 1868.,

C. Plaintiff no.2 company is an associate company of plaintiff no.1 which focuses on branded natural beverages such as tea, coffee and water. The",

plaintiff no.3 company namely Nourish Co Beverages Ltd. was created in light of a joint venture between plaintiff no.2 and PepsiCo India Holdings,

Private Limited.,

D. The plaintiff no.3 company aims to provide meaningful hydration solutions in the non-carbonated, ready-to-drink beverages segment in India and",

around the world. The product portfolio of the plaintiffs include: ‘Himalayan’, India’s premiere natural mineral water brand, ‘Tata Gluco",

Plus’, a glucose based drink in an affordable cup format and ‘Tata Water Plus’, Nutrient Water that seeks to provide essential",

micronutrients.,

E. The plaintiff no.3 company is manufacturing, selling, distributing and packaging India’s first nutrient water under the brand name and trademark",

‘TATA WATER PLUS’ which aims to mitigate nutritional gaps in the average Indian consumer by delivering ‘Healthy Beverages for a,

Healthier India’.,

F. An original and innovative concept in the area of health and nutrition, the nutrient water of the plaintiffs under the brand name ‘TATA WATER",

PLUS’ contains nutrients, such as copper which helps support body functions, and zinc with highlighted copy which helps strengthen the immune",

system. While it looks and tastes like normal water, every sip of ‘TATA WATER PLUS’ is packed with copper and zinc in a form that can be",

easily absorbed by the body.,

G. The plaintiff no.1 company, Tata Sons Limited is the proprietor and owner of the well-known trademarks ‘TATA’ and ‘TATA WATER",

PLUS’. Plaintiff nos.2 and 3 have been permitted by plaintiff no.1 company to use the trademark ‘TATA WATER PLUS’ vide a,

trademark license agreement dated 26th August, 2011. A copy of the said license agreement has been filed.",

H. The plaintiff no.1, its group companies, its subsidiaries and the companies promoted are also the proprietor of the trademarks ‘TATA WATER",

PLUS’ and ‘TATA’ in Class 32 [Beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic beverages; fruit beverages and fruit juices;,

syrups and other preparations for making beverages.], the relevant class for the purposes of the present suit. A table detailing the trademark",

registrations of the plaintiffs in the said class are outlined in paragraph 19 of the plaint and printouts from the website of the Trademark Registry,",

Government of India as regards the same have been filed in the present proceedings.,

I. The plaintiff no.1, its group companies, its subsidiaries and the companies promoted are also the proprietor of the trademarks ‘TATA WATER",

PLUS’ and ‘TATA’ in Class 16 [Paper and cardboard; printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives,

for stationery or household purposes; artists’ materials; paintbrushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional,

and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging; printers’ type; printing blocks. A table detailing the trademark,

registrations of the plaintiffs in the said class are outlined in paragraph 20 of the plaint and printouts from the website of the Trademark Registry,",

Government of India as regards the same have been filed in the present proceedings.,

J. As a result of the continuous and extensive use of the plaintiffs’ trademarks ‘TATA WATER PLUS’ and ‘TATA’, over a long",

period of time spanning a wide geographical area coupled with extensive promotion and publicity, the said trademarks have come to enjoy an",

unparalleled reputation and goodwill acquiring the status of a ‘well-known trademark’.,

K. Being reputed and well-known trademarks, the marks ‘TATA WATER PLUS’ and ‘TATA’ embody an aura of pre-eminent",

excellence and are recognized irrespective of the class of goods or services for which they are used.,

L. The cause of action against the defendant in the present suit first arose in September, 2016 when the plaintiffs from credible and reliable market",

sources learnt that the defendant entity through its proprietors, was manufacturing, selling and distributing packaged drinking water (pouches) under",

the infringing brand name/mark ‘TAZA WATER PLUS’.,

M. On the receipt of the said information, the plaintiffs through their legal representatives immediately instructed and engaged an independent",

Plaintiffs,Defendant

,