Case Analysis of Bacardi and Company Limited v. Bhahety Overseas Private Limited &Ors. CS(COMM) 464/2021 & I.A. 12323/2021

Sonam and Ria are friends. One day, they decide to get fruit juice from a store nearby to quench their thirst. They like on specific drink which is known as BREEZER. However, when they entered the store, they ended up buying a drink called FREEZMix which was placed right beside BREEZER. Thinking that it’s just another flavor offered by BREEZER they wished to try it. This happened because of the same font and the phonetic ring to the words used to name the drink – FREEZMix. The shape of both the bottles (which were of different brands) was the exact same. The similarity in the names of both the drinks led to the loss of BREEZER as a company and the gain of FREEZMix.

case analysisNow, some companies tend to take advantage of customer confusion in bad faith. The Indian judiciary has seen many such precedents which have tampered with the customer loyalty of their competitors to derive profit from it.

One such case which recently was seen by the Delhi High Court was of Bacardi and Company Limited v. Bhahety Overseas Private Limited &Ors. Bacardi and Company Limited (“Plaintiff”) manufactures and sells rum-based alcoholic beverages which are also mixed with various fruit essences. These drinks are popularly known as “BREEZER”. Bahety Overseas Private Limited & Ors. (“Defendants”) also manufactures drinks but which are alcohol-free fruit-based beverages. These drinks are known as “FREEZMix”.

The instant case revolves around an interim injunction plea brought to the Court by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed the actions of Infringement which is covered under section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (“the Act”), and passing off which is covered under the common law.

Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants’ product infringes the plaintiff’s registered trademark and therefore sought an injunction against the defendants’ products. The wordmark “BREEZER” and the shape mark of the bottle which is a well-known alcoholic drink have been duly registered under classes 32 and 33. The plaintiffs have been using it since the 27th February 2003 which is not disputed by any means by the Defendants.

The problem arose when the Defendants got their mark – “FREEZMix” registered and used it in a way that amounted to infringement of the Plaintiffs’ mark. The font and styling of the Defendants’ mark were such which was deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff’s mark. In furtherance of dealing with the problem, the Court took the view of the third-person perception. It stated that the people are more likely to get confused between the brands when they see the word “FREEZ” printed similarly to that of “BREEZER”. The consumers will not check the registration of the wordmark claiming it to be valid. Here, the Court applied the test of average man’s intelligence and his imperfect recollection. After examining all the clauses of section 29 of the Act, it was realized that section 29(2) envisages under which circumstances any situation shall be observed as infringement. If the mark (1) causes confusion in the public minds and (2) leads the public to believe in any association between the registered mark and the infringing mark.

All-in-all, infringement occurs when

  • “Either the marks are identical and the goods are similar, or the goods are similar and the marks are identical, or the goods and the marks must both be identical.
  • Because of such similarity or identity, one of the following two consequences must result:
  • there must be a likelihood of confusion in the minds of the public, or
  • the public must be likely to believe an association between the marks of the plaintiff and of the defendant.”

Words “FREEZ” and “BREEZER” are phonetically similar because “FREEZ” has the same ring to it as “BREEZ” does. Considering the fact that the word “FREEZMix” was registered in its entirety, however, “mix” was placed disproportionately below the word “FREEZ” which urges one to think about the reason behind it. Putting its reliance on the case of Amritdhara Pharmacy and Satya Deo Gupta AIR 1963 SC 449 where the Court held “Amritdhara” and “Lakshmandhara” phonetically similar. The case of Aristoc Ltd. v. Rysta Ltd, 62 RPC 65 wherein the Court stated that in situations like these, the test of first impression and imperfect recollection must be applied. Because, when a consumer which has little to no knowledge of any brand’s word, figurative, or any other mark is asked to spot the difference between two products from different brands having a deceptively similar mark will not be able to spot the difference.

Minor variations in the words will not make a difference when it comes down to the words sounding phonetically similar. Therefore, the word “mix” and “er” in both words hardly make any difference when “FREEZ” and “BREEZ” are phonetically similar.

Lastly, the Court dealt with the claim of the overall trade dress being similar to that of the Plaintiffs’. After looking closely at the samples of both the bottles, it was observed that the design and build of the bottles were indeed similar. Both the bottles had a “champagne-style base”. The shape of the neck of the bottle and all the colors used for the cap and the body of the bottle was observed to be identical.

The Court, taking the support of certain precedents like Phonepe Private Limited v. EZY Services, Bharat Biotech International Ltd. v. Optival Health Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. D. Sharma observed “Once the mark is registered, at an interlocutory stage, the Court would be loath to deny the registered trademark the statutory protection against infringement which Section 28(1) of the Trademarks Act confers on it, on the ground that it is common to the trade.”

To conclude, the court observed that Plaintiff has a prima facie case for grant of interlocutory injunction on the basis of infringement of the registered marks. As a result of the analysis, the Defendants are injuncted from using the mark “FREEZ” or “FREEZMix” or any other sign, mark, or domain name which even distantly are similar/ identical to that of the Plaintiffs’ mark. The Court also stopped the Defendants to use a design for its bottle which may be deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiffs’. There are a lot of precedents under the concept of deceptive similarity in the history of Intellectual Property Rights. The trial of such cases still follows because the owner of every business aims to have something which not only brings in profit but also attracts customer loyalty just like its competitor(s) might already have in the market.

Author: Priyal Dhandhukia – a student of  Symbiosis Law School (Pune), in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys.

Leave a Reply


  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010