RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED V. MD. SIRAJUDDIN AND BEAUTY BIBI, 2024 SCC ONLINE BOM 3549

CASE NAME	Reliance Retail Ltd. v. Md. Sirajuddin and Beauty Bibi
CITATION	2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3549
COURT	Bombay High Court
PETITIONER	Reliance Retail Ltd.
RESPONDENTS	Md. Sirajuddin and Beauty Bibi
DECIDED ON	24 October, 2024

INTRODUCTION

The case of Reliance Retail Limited v. Md. Sirajuddin and Beauty Bibi raises significant issues of trademark infringement and protecting intellectual property rights in the retail environment. Reliance Retail, a subsidiary of the multinational conglomerate Reliance Industries is suing the defendants for the misuse of its registered trademarks, and in particular, the “CAMPA” brand. This case also brings to light the complications surrounding protecting brand identities from infringement, and builds the legal framework for such claims in India.

This case shows how even minor variations of a well-known brand name can create legal disputes when they risk consumer confusion. It highlights the challenges companies face in protecting trademarks that have decades of goodwill behind them. The dispute also underscores the importance of acting promptly when brand identity is threatened and the role of courts in providing interim relief. It emphasizes that intellectual property protection is not only about legal ownership but also about preserving the reputation and distinctiveness of a brand in the marketplace. Finally, the case illustrates the delicate balance between encouraging competition and safeguarding established brand recognition.

Facts of the Case

1. Parties Involved:
   • Plaintiff: Reliance Retail Limited (Reliance Retail) is one of the largest retailers in India and a subsidiary of Fortune 500 Reliance Industries Limited. Reliance Retail began in 1999 and has become the largest retailer in India and offers everything from groceries to electronics, fashion and pharmacy.
   • Defendants: The Defendants, Md. Sirajuddin and Beauty Bibi, are using the name “JHAMPA” on their products as a copy of the “CAMPA” trademark. This will cause confusion among the consuming public that will mislead them and therefore hurt the reputation of the original brand.
2. Background of the Trademark:
   • The “CAMPA” trademark was originally owned by Campa Beverages Private Limited, which began in 1972. By 1983, it had a significant degree of market established in the soft drink segment which made it a recognized name in India.
   • Using a formal deed of assignment, Reliance was assigned the rights, title and interest to the “CAMPA” marks and the accompanying artistic work. The acquisition was widely reported and covered and detailed in various media, highlights the relaunch of the brand and the specifics of Reliance seemingly intention to relaunch, promote and monetize the brand.
3. Trademark Registration:
   • Reliance Retail owns a number of registrations of the `CAMPA’ trademark, dating from 1977. As the plaintiff has actively used and promoted the brand and the brand has existed over a long period, it has become a recognizable household name.
   • Reliance Retail as the plaintiff invested in heavy marketing on the `CAMPA’ brand following the purchase of ownership of `CAMPA’ brand, evident by its further investments in advertising campaigns. The financial statements filed in the court are reflective of the brand’s active and strong reputation.
4. Allegations Against the Defendants:
   • The plaintiff alleges that the defendants started to use an abbreviation of the trademark, `JHAMPA,’ which it claims is deceptively similar to that of `CAMPA.’ The plaintiff alleges that this deceptive similarity causes a likelihood of confusion for customers and further erodes the distinctiveness of its brand.
   • Once Reliance Retail became aware of the Defendant’s use, Reliance Retail sent the Defendants a cease-and-desist letter on August 23, 2024. The Defendants response was insufficient and therefore Reliance Retail has sought court intervention.
5. Legal Proceedings:
   • The plaintiff made an interim application in the High Court of Bombay asking for an injunction against the defendants preventing them from continuing their infringement of the plaintiff’s rights. The proceedings were decided by Justice R.I. Chagla and the respective strengths of the hearing were determined by the evidence and arguments provided.
6. Interim Applications:
   • Many interim applications were filed, including: (i) applications for amendment to the plaint; (ii) exemption from pre-institution mediation; (iii) application seeking to file electronic evidence. The court and parties agreed for every interim matter to proceed.

ISSUES

1. Did the defendants infringe Reliance Retail’s registered mark “CAMPA” with their use of the similar mark “JHAMPA”?
2. Is there a likelihood of confusion and deception among consumers with respect to the similarities of “CAMPA” and “JHAMPA”?
3. Did Reliance Retail establish that its claims were supported with ownership and use evidence for the relevant marks?
4. Evidence and Validity of Claims: Did Reliance Retail establish their claims were substantiated with evidence, including the ownership of the relevant trademarks, and their use?
5. Should the Court grant the interim relief as something that will benefit Plaintiff until the final final answer in the matter?

CONTENTIONS FROM BOTH SIDES

PLAINTIFFS’ CONTENTIONS

1. Ownership and Rights: The Plaintiff claims as a registered owner of the trademark “CAMPA” who acquired all rights per the assignment deed from Campa Beverages. Based on this, it follows that the Plaintiff has exclusive ownership rights to the use of the mark for its goods which may.
2. Infringement and Similarity: The plaintiff states that “JHAMPA” can be visually, phonetically, and structurally reminded back to “CAMPA”; merely replacing the letter C with the letter J does not distinguish the marks, and/or any common non-distinct similarities to “CAMPA”. There will be confusion to the unsuspecting consumer in the comparison.
3. Goodwill and Reputation: Reliance Retail states that, over the past few decades as an active beverage industry participating company, it spent years building substantial goodwill as an established company.
4. Evidence of Marketing Activities: The plaintiff provides evidence of substantial amounts of money spent to market and promote the brand “CAMPA” as well in the Eric J. O’Brien Acceptance Statements that show considerable sums of money spent to promote and market activities wherein the “CAMPA” brand exists online and offline.
5. Haste for Injunction: The plaintiff provides a substantial perspective that immediacy is required with an interim injunction for any infringement to spare any reputational identity damages. The irreparable harm to the plaintiff is characterized by the loss of goodwill to the consumer will entrench its original JKH brand name as other consumer alternatives.

DEFENDANTS’ CONTENTIONS

1. Denial of Infringement: The defendants assert that their use of “JHAMPA” did not infringe on the plaintiff’s trademark rights and that the use was not intended to deceive consumers, nor are the marks similar to confuse consumers.
2. Good Faith Use: The defendants maintain that they used the “JHAMPA” mark in good faith because they believe the name represents their local community and heritage and should not be construed as an effort to cash in on the plaintiff’s brand.
3. Lack of Harm: The defendants assert that the plaintiff has not shown any evidence of actual harm based on their use of “JHAMPA.” The defendants argue that any harm suffered is speculative and there is a lack of evidentiary support for its claims.
4. Procedural Defenses: The defendants argue that the plaintiff’s application did not include the undersigned evidence as part of its claims and that the defendants should be given an opportunity to make a full claim.
5. Public Interest: The defendants might argue that by permitting the defendants to continue using “JHAMPA”, the public will have access to increased choice in the beverage industry, and the parties will create healthy competition.

JUDGMENT

1. Prima Facie Case Established – The Court stated the plaintiff established a prima facie case of trademark infringement by analogy based on the similarity of “CAMPA” and “JHAMPA”. The Court referred to “the nature of the similarities between the two words highlight the confusing possibility for the consumer and likelihood of injury to the plaintiff’s brand identity as a whole.
2. Interim Injunction Granted – The Court determined that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to request an interim injunction in order to prevent the defendants from using the “JHAMPA” mark until a final resolution of the matter. The Court found that the good will and reputation of the plaintiff could be irreparably harmed based on the existence of the “JHAMPA” mark.
3. Evidence Taken into Consideration – The Court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff including the assignment deed, trademark registrations and as well evidence of their marketing. The Court noted the plaintiff provided compelling evidence that they invested a lot of resources (time and money) into promoting and/or advertising “CAMPA” that endorsed the plaintiff’s case.
4. Convenience – The Court stated that the balance of convenience favours the plaintiff because the injury to the plaintiff’s established brand (in loss of goodwill) is greater than any possible inconvenience to the defendant.
5. Evidence Responsibility: The court supplied that it would be the responsibility of both parties to furnish sufficient documentation for each party to sustain and substantiate their respective claims. The court directed the defendants to file any affidavit in response to the plaintiff’s allegations by a specified date.
6. Further Hearings Scheduled – The Court set the matter down for further hearings to allow both parties the opportunity to present their respective cases, including argument and evidence, so that all of the factors can be fully and properly assessed before making a final determination.

CONCLUSION

This case emanates from an application for a temporary injunction in a suit for infringement of trademarks and passing off. The court’s granting of a temporary injunction highlights the importance of protecting trademarks and protecting intellectual property rights. The court has offered reassurance, albeit temporary, to well-known brands against the initial use of similar names or brands by new market entrants. The court has demonstrated its willingness to curb any usage that diminishes or harms the goodwill associated with a well-known mark, especially at the interim stage when the promise of success is tangentially met. 

As the initial stage proceeds, the court has likely positioned itself to make an important finding about the rights of new entrants and any protections for trade mark holders as the law changes 

This case serves as a healthy reminder about the protection of intellectual property and consideration of brand identification in the competitive marketplace. 

The findings and rulings of this case are meaningful for any company trying to navigate trademark law and for all lawyers in trying to understand the parameters of brand protection in the modern day marketplace. This case has reiterated the tension that exists between the protection of well-known rights and the existence of new entrants into the marketplace, and emphasizes the necessity for clarity and regulation to protect intellectual property in general.

‘This article has been written by Tamanna Jain from University Five Year Law College, University of Rajasthan.’