In the recent case of Great Galleon Ventures Limited v Champa Prema Tandel Sole Proprietor of Dharmesh Distillery and Anr before the Delhi High Court, the plaintiff alleged trademark infringement, passing off and copyright violations related to the mark Goa Spirit of Smoothness and its variations. The plaintiff sought to restrain the first defendant from using the label Goa Beach Spirit of Smoothness, which it argued was confusingly similar to its own trademark and trade dress.
Great Galleon Ventures Limited, a subsidiary of the Kedia Group and a significant producer of Indian-made foreign liquor, held many trademarks, including Goa and Goa Spirit of Smoothness. The plaintiff asserted that the first defendant had infringed these trade marks by marketing whisky under the label Goa Beach Spirit of Smoothness, which they claimed closely resembled their own. The first defendant applied first for condonation of delay in filing his written statement and second to vacate the existing interim injunction granted to the plaintiff in his absence.
Regarding the main application to vacate the ex parte injunction, the plaintiff alleged that the first defendant’s use of Goa Beach Spirit of Smoothness constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff provided evidence of its use of the Goa and Goa Spirit of Smoothness marks since 1992 and 2003, respectively, and presented evidence of substantial sales and market presence as proof. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s use of his mark would lead to consumer confusion, amounting to trade mark infringement and passing off.
The first defendant claimed to have adopted the impugned mark in 2004, inspired by the cultural heritage of Goa, Daman and Diu, and reintroduced it into that market in 2013. He argued that his operations were confined to Daman and Diu and that its product packaging differed significantly from that of the plaintiff. The first defendant also argued that the plaintiff’s delay in filing the suit should preclude any interim relief and disputed the jurisdiction of the Delhi courts, asserting that his operations were limited to Daman and Diu.
After the court undertook a thorough comparison of the labels, it concluded that the first defendant’s label was a slavish imitation of the plaintiff’s, encompassing specific elements such as colour scheme, graphical representation of palm trees and font styles. The minor differences cited by the first defendant, such as cap colour and bottle shape, were insufficient to prevent consumer confusion. The court found the overall similarity was likely to deceive consumers into believing that the first defendant’s product was associated with the plaintiff. Recognising the plaintiff’s prior and continuous use of the Goa marks and the substantial goodwill associated with them, the court held that the first defendant’s reintroduction of the mark in 2013 did not establish concurrent use, especially given his intent to capitalise on the plaintiff’s established reputation.
The court condoned the delay in the first defendant’s application but rejected his argument of delay by the plaintiff. Significant similarity and clear infringement by the defendant could not be ignored and his clear dishonesty should not bar the legitimate rights of the plaintiff. As to territorial jurisdiction, the court accepted the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendant’s products were being sold in Delhi through unauthorised channels and that the plaintiff had a subordinate office in the city. The court accepted jurisdiction to deal with the applications and dismissed them.
The judgment underscores the principle that minor variations in product packaging or labels do not remove the likelihood of consumer confusion if the overall impression remains deceptively similar. The court’s willingness to condone delay by the first defendant highlights the importance of recognising the practical challenges faced by litigants gathering evidence. As to jurisdiction, the ruling upheld the principle that objections to the court’s reach must assume the truth of the plaintiff’s assertions unless clearly false. The core of the judgment is the determination of the courts to protect the established goodwill and reputation of a trademark owner against clear cases of infringement and dishonesty, irrespective of delays in seeking relief.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Ritika Agarwal
First Published by: IBLJ here