Company | Value | Change | %Change |
---|
Jack Daniel’s argued that Mangalam Krupa had adopted a mark identical or deceptively similar to its globally recognised trademark, potentially misleading consumers and diluting the brand’s goodwill, the report said. The company highlighted that its trademark, operational since 1895, represents a billion-dollar enterprise and is synonymous with premium-quality beverages sold in over 170 countries, including India.
Justice Bansal found merit in the petitioner’s claims, stating that the registration prima facie violated Sections 9(2)(a) and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the B&B report said. The Court observed that irreparable harm would be caused to the petitioner if the registration was not stayed.
“In my view, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioner… Balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and against respondent no. 1,” the B&B report quoted from the order.
The trademark had been registered in 2023 on a “proposed to be used” basis. Jack Daniel’s sought to have the mark removed, emphasising the risk of reputational damage.
The case will next be heard on March 26, 2025. Jack Daniel was represented by advocates Ankit Sahni, Kritika Sahni, Chirag Ahluwalia, and Mohit Maru, while Mangalam Krupa was represented by Venkat Prabhat and Abhinav M. Goel.
(Edited by : Ajay Vaishnav)