Consuming Packaged Drinking Water Of Inferior Quality Can Be Fatal: Delhi High Court On Sale Of ‘Taza Water Plus’ Bottles In Tata’s Trademark Suit
Observing that consumption of packaged drinking water which may be of inferior quality could lead to fatalities, the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained an individual from manufacturing water bottles under the mark “Taza Water Plus” in a trademark and copyright infringement case filed by Tata Sons Private Limited. Justice Sanjeev Narula found the individual manufacturer guilty...
Observing that consumption of packaged drinking water which may be of inferior quality could lead to fatalities, the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained an individual from manufacturing water bottles under the mark “Taza Water Plus” in a trademark and copyright infringement case filed by Tata Sons Private Limited.
Justice Sanjeev Narula found the individual manufacturer guilty of infringement by dishonestly adopting a trademark which was “nearly identical” to Tata’s trademark “Tata Water Plus” for mineral water bottles and identical packaging.
Proceeding ex-parte against one Sarfaraz Khan, the court also said that he had chosen to deliberately stay away from the proceedings despite service and thus Tata Sons Private Limited and its group companies will be entitled to nominal damages.
The court decreed the suit filed by Tata Sons Private Limited in its favour by awarding Rs. 3 lakhs as damages to be paid by Khan.
“Defendant is directed to hand over all infringing material (tangible and intangible), if any, to the authorized representative(s) of the Plaintiffs for the purpose of destruction, in compliance with extant rules/ regulations,” the court ordered.
Tata Sons had filed the suit alleging infringement of copyright of a peculiar and distinctive trade dress associated with its mineral water product as well as the registered and well-known trademarks “Tata and “Tata Water Plus.”
Granting relief to Tata Sons Private Limited, the court said that Khan’s product packaging is a “slavish imitation” of Tata’s products and that the individual attempted to copy all the essential features of Tata’s unique, distinct and peculiar packaging.
“Defendant has used an identical trade dress as that of Plaintiffs which includes the brown and blue strips and the words mentioned therein and even their font size and style. The words “TAZA WATER PLUS” on Defendants’ packaging are written in a font and manner which is identical to the way in which the Plaintiffs have written the words “TATA WATER PLUS”. The only visible change is that the third-letter “T” in “TATA” has been replaced by “Z” in “TAZA”,” the court said.
Justice Narula further said that if Khan is not permanently restrained, an injury is likely to be caused to Tata Sons Private Limited and its group companies on account of severe harm to their reputation and dilution of goodwill of their trademarks.
Observing that Khan’s infringing activities also hold grave potential for public harm as the product in question is packaged drinking water which directly ties into public health, the court said:
“Consumption of packaged drinking water which may be of inferior quality could lead to fatalities. Given that packaged drinking water of both parties is sold in the same trade channel, consumers may associate the Defendant’s product as emanating from the Plaintiffs, leading to confusion whereas Plaintiffs have no control over the quality of Defendant’s product. In view of the Court, a clear case of infringement and passing off is made out.”
Case Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD & ORS. v. SARFARAZ KHAN
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 316