Tue. Nov 24th, 2020

Sanjay Kapur & Anr vs Planters Pride & Ors on 29 May, 2018

3 min read

(ii) Holistic Healing; (iii) Amrita Chopra; and, (iv) Dhruv Baijnath, also in
the business of market and export of tea, from advertising and selling their
tea in packaging similar/slavish imitation of the packaging of the plaintiffs,
resulting in infringement of the plaintiffs right in their packaging, and for
ancillary reliefs.

2. It is the case of the plaintiffs, (a) that they have been in the business
of tea for 34 years prior to the institution of the suit and have built
enormous reputation and acquired a distinct niche in the market, with the
CS(COMM) 125/2017 Page 1 of 14
plaintiff No.1 being popularly known as “Tea Master of India”; (b) that the
plaintiffs, in the year 1981 created a unique and innovative packaging for
tea and which trade dress and get-up has also come to be exclusively
associated with the plaintiffs and which rights of the plaintiffs have been
protected in several orders of the Court; (c) that the defendants, who are
related to the plaintiffs, in the past attempted to contact a prime retail
partner of the plaintiffs located at Delhi International Airport and tried to
get their own products approved for sale at the said outlet; (d) that the
defendants have now started selling tea in an identical and similar
packaging, trade dress, style and get-up as that of the plaintiffs; (e) that a
look at the defendants‟ product from a distance would give an unmistakable
impression as if it were that of the plaintiffs, inasmuch as the defendants
brand is almost invisible to the naked eye; (f) that the trade dress used by
the plaintiffs consists of (i) soft paper pouch of cuboidal/rectangular shape,
designed to make a unique look stand-up soft pack; (ii) the cuboidal shape
is adorned with a textile packing bag over the primary cuboidal paper
pouch; (iii) the packing bag is ornamented with a drawstring on top and flat
rectangular bottom which facilitates a stand-up pouch; (iv) only Indian-look
fabrics are used for the packaging; (v) the ornamentation with a centralised
label and a ribbon to finish it constitutes a typical trade dress; (vi) the
cuboidal shape is volume efficient as it makes a big faced pack, facilitating
marketing messages over a large face of pack; and, (vii) the cuboidal and
flat bottom pack with a fabric bag is light in weight and hence economical
to transport even by air; (g) that the packaging of the plaintiffs is thus a
brand identity of the plaintiffs; (h) that the plaintiffs place a printed card at
the back of the pouch, containing details of the tea; (i) that these unique

CS(COMM) 125/2017 Page 2 of 14
elements constitute the brand quality of the product of the plaintiffs and has
acquired a secondary meaning over the said brand and identity; (j) that a
velvet pouch as used by the plaintiffs was in the past used only for
packaging dry fruits etc. and was never used by any manufacturer to
package tea; (k) that the plaintiffs, by conversion of a potli into definite
cuboidal shape, have made it stackable on retail store shelves and such
packaging is considered as “high export” quality tea packaging; (l) that the
plaintiff No.2 Naina Kapur and defendant No.3 Amrita Chopra are sisters;

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply