The Bombay High Court recently granted an ad-interim temporary injunction against a beverage company using the "JHAMPA" trademark, which it found to be deceptively similar to the long-established "CAMPA" brand owned by Reliance Retail Ltd, a subsidiary of Reliance Industries [Reliance Retail Ltd. v. Md. Sirajuddin and Beauty Bibi].
The Court’s order restrains the defendant-beverage company from using the disputed mark, pending the outcome of the ongoing trademark infringement suit.
A single Bench of Justice RI Chagla, in his interim order, noted that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of infringement.
"Prima facie, the impugned trade mark 'JHAMPA' is visually, phonetically and structurally deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark CAMPA. The impugned trade mark is used in respect of the same goods for which the Plaintiff has secured registration of its CAMPA trade marks and has been using the same," he observed.
The Court also found that the defendant company’s artistic works were substantially similar to those of the plaintiff, which are protected by copyright, raising concerns about consumer confusion.
The case revolves around the Reliance’s acquisition of the 'Campa' cola brand in 2022 from Campa Beverages Private Limited. Campa, which has been a well-known name in India since its introduction in 1977, is now part of a portfolio owned by the Reliance-backed retail company.
The defendant, also a beverage company, adopted the "Jhampa" mark for its non-alcoholic drinks, prompting the plaintiff (Reliance) to file the suit alleging infringement of its trademark and copyrights.
During the hearing, Reliance contended that the defendant's use of "Jhampa" was a deliberate attempt to exploit the goodwill of the Campa brand. It argued that the two marks were nearly identical, and that the defendant's product packaging, including its logos and color schemes, copied the plaintiff’s registered artistic works.
The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that "Jhampa" was simply the name of a village, not intended to confuse consumers. However, the Court found this defense unconvincing, especially since the defendant filed a trademark application for "Jhampa" after the plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice.
After hearing both the parties, the Court issued directions to the defendant, stating that it was restrained from "directly or indirectly, infringing, adopting, using, offering for sale, manufacturing, distributing, selling, advertising, depicting, displaying, in the course of trade and/or business/service, the Applicant’s Trademarks including the registered trademark ‘CAMPA’."
The defendant was also prohibited from using any "deceptively similar trademark or variant thereof" in relation to any non-alcoholic beverages or other products.
Furthermore, the Court restrained the beverage company from infringing the plaintiff's artistic works, including logos, trade dress, color combinations, and slogans found "identical and/or deceptively similar" to the Campa brand’s registered artistic designs.
These directions specifically covered the use of the disputed marks on advertisements, marketing or promotional material, notices, circulars, letterheads, signages, either in print or online, including on social media platforms.
Justice Chagla while granting the ad interim relief noted that,
"The balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff, and unless reliefs as prayed for are granted, the Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable injury."
The defendant company has been ordered to file its affidavit in reply by November 18, 2024. The Court has set the next hearing for November 27, 2024, and the injunction will remain in force until that date.
Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani along with Advocates Hiren Kamod, Thomas George, Niyati Fatehpuria, Neeti Nihal and Siddharth Joshi instructed by Saikrishna & Associates appeared for the plaintiff.
Advocate Pritish Chatterjee represented the defendant.
[Read Order]