Bombay High Court refuses to vacate interim relief granted to Mumbai's Haji Ali Juice Centre in trademark infringement suit

The Bombay High Court recently refused to vacate ad-interim relief granted to Haji Ali Juice Centre (plaintiff) in a trademark infringement suit. [Asma Farid Noorani v. Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices and Ors].Justice Manish Pitale emphasized that the mark was registered with the plaintiff and the one used by the defendants was deceptively similar to it."It must be remembered that the plaintiff has placed on record documentary material to show that its word mark and also the label consisting of the device of the red apple, are registered in favour of the plaintiff and a bare look at the mark being used by the defendants shows that the same is prima facie identical and deceptively similar to the registered marks of the plaintiff," the Court said..In June 2021, the plaintiff had moved the High Court after coming across the defendant's juice outlets in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh that were using the mark 'Haji Ali Fresh Juice Centre' which he claimed was deceptively similar to his registered mark 'Haji Ali Juice Centre'. The logo with an apple used by the defendant was also similar, it was claimed..The Court had found that prima facie, the offending mark being used by the defendant was likely to cause confusion amongst consumers. On this basis, it was found that all the parameters for grant of interim relief were satisfied by the plaintiff..There were two applications moved before Justice Pitale. One was filed by the plaintiff asking for the continuation of the relief, while the other was filed by the defendant asking for the order granting the reliefs to be vacated..For the defendants, Advocate Hiren Kamod told the Court that the plaintiff deliberately suppressed an earlier suit against two of the defendants at Ernakulam. He said that the plaintiff also suppressed the fact that defendant no. 2 in the case, who is the Managing Partner of firm ‘Al-Ali Enterprises,’ had filed a trademark application for the mark ‘Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices’ with the logo of a red apple.Therefore, he argued that the plaintiff was dis-entitled to continuation of the ad-interim relief granted by the Court. It was also claimed that the words 'Haji Ali' were publici juris (of public right) and the plaintiff could not claim exclusivity over the same..On the other hand, Advocate Rashmin Khandekar for the plaintiff underlined that merely because the offending mark being used in the establishments in Vijayawada was the same as the mark being used by defendant no.2 in Kerala, it could not be presumed that there was a direct link between the establishments.Therefore, he claimed that there was no suppression of facts on part of the plaintiff.On the aspect of the words ‘Haji Ali’ being publici juris, he claimed that there was no substance in the contention, for the simple reason that the defendants themselves had sought registration of their mark, of which the words ‘Haji Ali’ formed an integral part..The Court noted that the statements made by the plaintiff regarding absence of any material in the public domain, including the Facebook page of the establishments at Vijayawada, about any link or connection between the establishments were uncontroverted by the defendant..Thereafter, it found that the plaintiff was resisting misuse of its registered trademark by initiating proceedings much prior to the suit filed in the present case, indicating that there have been cases of establishments using identical or deceptively similar marks to the registered trademark of the plaintiff.Hence, the basis on which the defendants alleged suppression of facts on part of the plaintiff was found to be unsustainable by the Court..On the word 'Haji Ali' being publici juris the Court noted that the plaintiff was claiming exclusivity rights on the combination of words 'Haji Ali Juice Centre' and, therefore, the concept was inapplicable."In any case, the defendants themselves having applied for registration of their mark consisting of the words ‘Haji Ali,’ shows that they are blowing hot and cold at the same time. In this backdrop, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has indeed made out a case in her favour for continuation of the ad-interim reliefs in the interest of justice," the Court added..For these reasons, the Court confirmed and continued the ad-interim reliefs granted by it to the owner of Haji Ali Juice Centre..[Read Judgment]