AMUL wins Trademark case in Federal Court of Canada

The Federal Court at Ontario, Canada permanently barred a company Amul Canada from infringing trademark and copyright of the plaintiffs - Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Limited and Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. - owners of the trademark "AMUL" (India's largest food brand)..Justice Alan S Diner held that the defendants infringed the exclusive trademark and copyright of the plaintiffs and awarded damages of $10,000 for trademark, $5,000 for copyright infringements aside for lump sum legal costs on a solicitor and client basis of $17,733. .Justice Diner ordered the defendants to transfer to the plaintiffs within 30 days of judgment, ownership and all rights access, administration and control for and over the LinkedIn pages, domain names and other social media pages controlled by the defendants displaying the plaintiff's trademark or copyright. .He observed that the defendants directed public attention to the their business in such a way as to cause confusion in Canada at the time they commenced between their business and the goods and business of the plaintiffs..The plaintiffs approached the Federal Court alleging breaches of trademark and copyright in Canada through Amul Canada's LinkedIn website, advertising their product, using their brand image, name and corporate information. They claimed that their trademark "AMUL" is the world's largest vegetarian cheese brand and pouched milk brand and a "well-known trademark" in India.They claimed to have been selling, advertising and distributing AMUL trademarked goods in Canada since 2010 and Kaira was the registered trademark owner of the Canadian Trademark Registration for AMUL since June 30, 2020 in association with the goods "milk products". Kaira also owned trademarks design having the expressions - "Amul The Taste of India" and “Amul Pasturized [sic] Butter utterly butterly delicious”. .The plaintiffs stated that these trademarks and associated products were well-known in Canada, India and throughout the world.They stated their trademarks were distinctively known in Canada for identifying their brand and associating the marks with their high-quality products. "They have acquired goodwill starting in India and then through the years around the world. The Plaintiffs allege that there is also goodwill in Canada, at least amongst Canadians of Indian origin," the Court stated..The plaintiffs attempted to have the defendants cease and desist in advertising, marketing, offering for sale, selling and providing goods identical to the plaintiff's goods in Canada with the trademarks and trade names AMUL and Amul Canada Limited through LinkedIn. "The defendants are not only using the exact marks and designs belonging to the plaintiffs, but they are claiming to be the plaintiffs, through copying the information available on the AMUL websites regarding the Plaintiffs’ background and activities."The plaintiffs stated they had never licensed or provided consent to the defendant or its employees to use the trademarks in any manner. The plaintiffs served relevant materials on the defendants and their employees to elicit their response albeit unsuccessfully. They then moved an 'ex-parte motion for default judgment'. .Considering the material to support the breaches alleged, the Court deduced that the defendants' conduct exceeded the usual case of confusion caused by slight altercations o the mark, similar description of copyrights material or modification of a design. "Rather, they are using, without any colour of right, an exact duplicate of the Plaintiffs’ mark, and an exact copy of their copyrighted material," the judge noted. .The Court opined that one consequence of using the AMUL designed and coined name is that the defendants have confused certain individuals, job-seekers, distributors, and/or corporations who viewed their social media pages. .The Court, therefore, granted relief to the plaintiffs ruling that the defendants have infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs contrary to section 27 of the Copyright Act and trademark rights of the plaintiffs, contrary to sections 19 and 20(1)(a) of the Trademarks Act..[Read Judgment]