'Smart Copying': Delhi High Court Restrains Manufacturer From Selling Liquor Under 'Peace Maker' Label In Suit By Officer's Choice

The Delhi High Court has restrained a Karnataka-based manufacturer from selling whiskey and other liquor products under the “Peace Maker” label in a suit filed by alcoholic beverages manufacturer “Officer's Choice.”

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that prima facie, there was a clear attempt to indulge in “smart copying” by the manufacturer which would still be copying.

“The chart of differences, in fact, shows that extraordinary effort has been put by the Defendant in identifying the differences. The broad similarities are so obvious at the first look, the differences are nudged into oblivion,” the court said.

However, Justice Singh said that the injunction will not preclude the manufacturer from using the red and white color combination of the label in a manner so as to not cause any confusion or deception or be imitative of the “OFFICERS CHOICE” label.

The court further directed the manufacturer to file an account of sales of the 'PEACE MAKER' whisky under the label by means of an affidavit from launch till date.

“Considering that the products are liquor products, the Defendant is given 30 days for exhausting the existing stock. The existing stock is permitted to be exhausted after an inventory is prepared in the presence of the Plaintiff's representative,” the court said.

Allied Blenders and Distillers Private Limited filed the suit against Hermes Distillery Private Limited alleging that the look and feel of the label of the latter's products was identical to the former's.

On the other hand, the defendant manufacturer submitted that there was no consistency in Officer's Choice's labels and that the said company has been changing its labels from time to time.

Justice Singh observed that if the products of the two companies are stacked together, it is possible for any consumer to presume that Peace Maker's product also emanates from Officer's Choice bouquet of products.

“…the Court has to put itself in a realistic position to see the manner in which bottles are stacked in bar counters. These venues are typically not brightly lit and are usually dimly lit. In such a setting, if a consumer orders the Plaintiff's product and the bartender serves the Defendant's product, owing to the broad similarity of the labels, the consumer may not even be able to tell that the product served is that of the Defendant's and not of the Plaintiff's,” the court said.

It added that the likelihood of confusion that a connoisseur of such products may not be able to discern the difference after tasting them, but the test is not of the standard of a connoisseur but that of an ordinary consumer or layperson.

“Even the purchase at liquor outlets would include by consumers who could be from varying strata of society and may not be able to discern fully the distinguishing features. Confusion as to affiliation or sponsorship is a clear possibility,” the court said.

It added that the overall appearance of the two labels is similar at first glance, thereby constituting similar trade dress.

“Therefore, the two labels were deceptively similar as perceived by a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection,” the court said.

Counsel for Plaintiff: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shrawan Chopra and Mr. Achyut Tewari Advs

Counsel for Defendant: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. N. K. Bhardwaj, Ms. Anju Agrawal, Mr. Bikash Ghorai, Mr. Avinash Kumar Sharma, Advs

Title: ALLIED BLENDERS @ DISTILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HERMES DISTILLERY PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 59

Click Here To Read Order