In this case, the Plaintiff had instituted a suit against the Defendant and his proprietorship for infringement of trademark, copyright, trade dress, layout, colour combination, get up of the Plaintiff’s trademark PULSE candies adopting the trademark PULSER along with a deceptively similar trade dress.

The Plaintiff company is into the business of selling food, beverages, mouth fresheners, pan masala, tobacco and the Plaintiff company is also into hospitality, agro forestry, rubber thread and infrastructure. It is to be noted that, the Plaintiff was functioning under the umbrella name PASS PASS PULSE for which, the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor. Under this umbrella name, the Plaintiff group commenced its business under the trademark PULSE on 13th December 2014. The business was with respect to hard boiled candies and the trademark had gradually acquired popularity among the public since then. The candies under the tradename PULSE were sold in various flavours inter alia were Kaccha Aam, Guava and Orange and it was packed in a unique way having distinct layout, get up and colour scheme.

It was in February 2019, during a market surveillance, that the Plaintiff came across a street hawker advertising and selling candies having the flavour of raw mango and bearing the mark PULSER and trade dress under the DADA trading style. It was alleged by the Plaintiff that the Defendants had adopted a deceptively similar trademark PULSAR for its candies under the DADA trading style. Further, the Defendants had adopted a similar flavour for the candies, that is Kaccha Aam. The Defendant had not only adopted a trademark deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiffs trademark but also adopted an identical trade dress. Furthermore, the Defendants had adopted the tagline “Kaccha Aam with Tangy Twist” which was identical to the Plaintiff’s tagline “Kaccha Aam with Tangy Twist”.

The suit was decreed directing the Defendants to deposit an amount to the tune of two lakhs with Friendicoes Animal Centre and file a receipt of the same within two weeks. The Court directed to withdraw their trademark application bearing the trademark PULSER in addition to other reliefs as sought in the prayer by the Plaintiff group.

While the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff, what stands apart is the fact that it took a social angle, directing the Defendants to make a deposit to an Animal Centre. While punitive might be a form of reprimanding the Defendants, the Court, in the present case, went a step ahead and thought “Welfare” and supported the ‘Animal Cause.’

Summary