The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea challenging the Delhi High Court order that restrained the manufacture and sale of sweet beverage concentrate 'Sharbat Dil Afza' during the pendency of a lawsuit by Hamdard Dawakhana which sells 'Rooh Afza' for alleged trademark infringement.
A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud refused to interfere with the high court order dated December 21, 2022.
"Rooh Afza has a well-established brand. You were selling some kind of medicine and suddenly you start drinks with similar-sounding names. We will not interfere. Dismissed," the bench, also comprising Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala, said.
The high court, in its order, had restrained the manufacture and sale of 'Dil Afza' after Hamdard Dawakhana had alleged trademark infringement.
It had said that prima facie, 'Rooh Afza' served as the source identifier for Hamdard for over a century and has acquired immense goodwill and it was essential to ensure that the competitors keep a safe distance from the mark.
The court's order came on an appeal by Hamdard against a single judge's order refusing to pass an interim order to restrain 'Dil Afza' manufacturer Sadar Laboratories (respondent) from allegedly indulging in trademark infringement.
Centre notifies appointment of Chief Justices for four high courts
Two HC judges elevated to SC, total strength of apex court reaches 34
As vacancies pile up in high courts, gloves are off in Centre-SC showdown
Andhra HC cannot be town planner: Supreme Court on high court order
No legal system can keep raking up resolved issues repeatedly: SC
After settlement between parties NCLAT set aside case against McLeod Russel
Illegal dairies, lack of cowsheds behind cattle running amok in Delhi: MCD
UN forecasts 2 in 3 chance of briefly hitting key heat limit soon
Five Cong 'guarantees' in K'taka may cost state exchequer Rs 50,000 crore
Vaishnavi Group leases 400,00 sq ft office space to Navi Tech in Bengaluru
The high court also noted that both the products have the "same deep red colour and texture" and the "structure of the bottles is not materially different" and thus opined that the "commercial impression of the impugned trademark is deceptively similar to the appellants' trademark".
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)