CASE STUDY: Coca-Cola Company v/s Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

The case study of Coca-Cola v/s Bisleri was an infringement case in the history of intellectual property in India. Both companies Coca-Cola and Bisleri are branded companies where Coca-Cola is famous for selling SOFT DRINKS and Bisleri is famous for selling bottled WATER.

V/S

THE CASE: The company Coca-Cola sued Bisleri to stop selling their product MAAZA.

Companies Background:

Earlier in 1993, Bisleri was known as Aqua Minerals Private LTD. It sold its intellectual property to 5 other companies Thums Up, Limca, Gold Spot, Citra, and MAAZA.

etc. these all are soft drinks.

This case is all about MAAZA.

In 2008 Bisleri had registered trademark for MAAZA in Turkey and started selling it there but plaintiff had registered trademark in India. After noticing by Coca-Cola, plaintiff sent legal notice to the defendant to back out or to renouncing the licensing for MAAZA from using their trademark directly or indirectly. Because, Coca-Cola was already parent company for MAAZA drink and they were selling MAAZA legaly in india.

Bisleri was denied to back off to using Trademark for MAAZA in Turkey. However, Coca-Cola found that Bisleri allows to third party company like Verma International and M/s. Indian Canning Industries and selling their products by Aqua Minerals Private LTD which is now known as Bisleri.

Arguments:

The argument was filed by Coca-Cola that they luanched MAAZA in 1976 and if any production or manufatured with this MAAZA trademark to sell in India or to export to any other countries it would be considered as infringement to their trademark.

As Bisleri said they sell the product MAAZA only in Turkey. So, there would not be an infringemnet for the defendant’s trademark. However, there was further an issue due to plaintiff was registered the trademark in India hence plaintiff can not sell the product with same trademark. And plaintiff has legal authority to sell their product in India and authority to file case who is using their trademark.

Plaintiff was registered with same trademark in Turkey that’s why defandant sued back on plaintiff because defendant was already registered with same trademark. Even plaintiff blames defendant for having manufacturing places in india.

Court’s Decision:

Delhi high court has jurisdiction in this matter. The product was manufactured and sold in Turkey. Bislery had already registered and Coca-Cola’s blame was not true therefore court decided to the product MAAZA can be sold in any country or production or manufacture by Bislery. And in India only production or manufacture by Coca-Cola. This was all worn out due to defendant had large loss on their selling the products.

Conclusion:

Trademark is a unique symbol or words that used to signify a business or its products. Once registered, a trademark cannot be used by any other organization, as long as it remains in use and the owner maintains proper control and protection over it. The case is an explanation of the definition of TrademarkIf a trademark is licensed by a company, no other establishment may use it without permission, as doing so may be considered an infringement.

The case made it clear that a trademark of any brand or company can be registered in any country, and if anyone tries to use the same trademark, whether it is in the same country or in another country. If anyone do that it would be considered as infringement.

SOURCES:

Products owned by companies:

Products owned by Bislery

Products owned by Coca-Cola