ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV INDIA LIMITED(FORMERY SABMILLER INDIA LIMITED) v. JAGPIN BREWERISE LIMITED AND 2 ORS
Trademark Infringement and Passing Off: Permanent Injunction Granted for Deceptively Similar Use of "5000" in Beer Trademark Despite Lack of Proven Damages.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:24174
Decision Date: 08-12-2025
List of Laws
The Trade Marks Act, 1999; The Companies Act, 1956; The Civil Procedure Code, 1908; The Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Passing Off; Infringement
- Facts: Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a suit against Jagpin Brewerise Limited & Ors. (Defendants) seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff's registered trademarks "HAYWARDS 5000" and "FIVE THOUSAND" both registered in Class 32 for beer. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were using the deceptively similar mark "COX 5000" for their beer, leading to passing off. The Plaintiff also sought damages of Rupees Five Lakhs. The Plaintiff's predecessor in title, Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., had originally adopted the "HAYWARDS 5000" trademark in 1983, and it was declared a well-known trademark by the Delhi High Court in 2003.
- Procedural Posture: The case is a Commercial IP Suit filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The Defendants filed a Written Statement raising objections, including a challenge to the court's jurisdiction and claims of non-infringement. The Defendants' application for rectification of the Plaintiff's trademark was dismissed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Despite multiple opportunities, the Defendants failed to lead evidence in the suit, and their subsequent applications for stay and amendment were dismissed for want of prosecution. The suit proceeded to final hearing ex-parte.
- Issue: (1) Did the Defendants, by using the impugned trademark "COX 5000", infringe the Plaintiff's registered trademarks "HAYWARDS 5000" and "FIVE THOUSAND"? (2) Did the Defendants pass off their beer as that of the Plaintiff by using the impugned trademark? (3) Is the numeral "5000" common to the trade and thus 'public juris' for use in the sale of beer? (4) Is the Plaintiff entitled to damages or profits earned by the Defendants due to the use of the impugned trademark? (5) Is the Plaintiff entitled to a permanent injunction?
- Holding: The Court held in favor of the Plaintiff, decreeing the suit and granting a permanent injunction against the Defendants. The Court answered Issues 1, 2, and 5 in the affirmative and Issues 3 and 4 in the negative.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Plaintiff had established its registered proprietorship of the trademarks "HAYWARDS 5000" and "FIVE THOUSAND". The Defendants failed to provide any evidence to support their defenses, including the claim that the numeral "5000" was common to the trade. The Court found that the Defendants' use of "COX 5000" was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's marks, leading to a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The Court emphasized that the numeral "5000" was the dominant and essential feature of both marks. The Court relied on established principles of trademark law, including the test of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. While the Court found infringement and passing off, it denied the claim for damages due to the Plaintiff's failure to provide evidence quantifying the losses or the Defendants' profits. The Court awarded costs of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the Plaintiff, applying Section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
🔒 For Members Only