The Delhi High Court on Wednesday ordered an Indian company named Neeraj Food Products to pay nearly Rs 16 lakh to British confectionery company Cadbury for infringing on its ‘Cadbury Gems’ trademark, in a case that has been ongoing since 2005.

In the case Mondelez India Foods Pvt Ltd and Anr v Neeraj Food Products, Cadbury India Limited – as Mondelez was known at the time – filed a complaint in court in 2005, alleging that Neeraj Food Products or the defendant had launched a chocolate product under the brand “James Bond” with a color palette, identical layout and layout. than that of its “Cadbury Gems” or “Gems” products.

With nearly identical packaging and product, it’s understandable that Cadbury was angered by the ‘Cadbury Gems’ and ‘James Bond’ controversy.

In its decision, the Court also prohibited Neeraj Food Products from using the trademark “James” or “James Bond” for its products.

Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that almost everyone’s childhood is associated with Cadbury Gems and its brand is known to young and old.

The Court said that Cadbury’s packaging is unique and that he is the registered owner of the trademark “Cadbury Gems” as well as the artistic character known as “Gems Bond”.

There is no doubt that the defendant infringed Cadbury’s rights, the judge added.

This is not the first time such a case has occurred in India, a country known for its lax laws on the protection of intellectual property rights.

Under Indian laws, trademark is a mark “capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others and may include the shape of the goods, their packaging and a combination of colors”.

However, the reality is a bit different: in a country like India, where counterfeit items are sold on every street corner, trademark counterfeiting regulation poses a daunting challenge.

On July 16, in a similar case, the Delhi High Court permanently banned a Bengaluru-based pastry shop from using the name “Facebake” or “Facecake”, or indeed any other Facebook brand, after Meta Platforms , owner of Facebook, went to court.

(To receive our electronic document daily on WhatsApp, please click here. To receive it on Telegram, please click here. We allow sharing of the PDF of the document on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)


Previous

Changes to Ohio Property Tax Assessment Challenges - Property Taxes

Next

UK Commission Aims to Clarify Crypto Ownership Law

Check Also