The plaintiff, Coca Cola, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Bisleri International, for trademark infringement and passing off. Coca Cola had acquired rights to trademarks such as Maaza from the previous owners. Bisleri was exporting Maaza products to Australia without permission. The court found that Bisleri had infringed Coca Cola's trademarks and granted an injunction preventing Bisleri from using the Maaza mark in India. However, Bisleri could continue manufacturing Maaza for export. On appeal, the injunction was upheld but Bisleri was allowed to manufacture Maaza on the condition that the products were only exported.

1. PREPARED BY:
ARPIT MAHESHWARI
MECHANCIAL ENGINEER

2.  Injunction: an official order from a court of law to do/not do something
 Plaintiff: a person who starts a legal action against somebody in a court of law
 Defendant: an individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law.
 IP Infringement: IP infringement is breach or violation of intellectual
property rights. IPRs are said to be infringed when a work protected by IP laws is
used, copied, distributed or otherwise exploited without having the proper
permission from the owners
Examples of IP infringement are “trademark counterfeiting” and
“copyright piracy”

3.  What is passing off?
Passing off happens when someone deliberately or unintentionally
passes off their goods or services as those belonging to another party.
This action of misrepresentation often damages the goodwill of a
person or business, causing financial or reputational damage.Passing
off happens when someone deliberately or unintentionally passes off
their goods or services as those belonging to another party. This
action of misrepresentation often damages the goodwill of a person or
business, causing financial or reputational damage.

4.  The parties to this case contended on infringement of trademark within and
outside the jurisdiction where the brand trades,

5. • Plaintiff ( Coca Cola) was the largest brand of soft drinks operating in 200 countries.
• Defendant No.1, which was earlier known as Aqua Minerals Pvt. Ltd., was a part of
Parle group of Industries.
• The owners of defendant, Mr. Ramesh Chauhan and Mr. Prakash Chauhan, on
September 18, 1993, sold the trademarks , formulation rights, know- how, intellectual
property rights, goodwill etc. of their products THUMBS UP, LIMCA, GOLD SPOT,
MAAZA to the plaintiff.
• Then, the plaintiff was envisaged with the right to sell the product Maaza within the
territory of India.

6.  The company Bisleri Sales Ltd, had the secret beverage base for manufacturing
maaza and was an affiliated company of Defendant no. 1.
 On September 12, 1993, several agreements were signed between both the parties,
such as, deed of assignment, goodwill assignment, know-how, confidentiality and
non- use agreement, non- compete agreement, general assignment, etc. to give
effect to the sale for a considerable money value.

9. • As a result of this, it sent plaintiff a legal notice repudiating the
Licensing Agreement and made it devoid of all other selling rights.
• The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction and damages for
infringement of trademark and passing off, as the defendant had
completely ignored many irrevocable and absolute rights embarked
upon the plaintiff.
• Also, it was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant had
unauthorisedly permitted the manufacture of certain ingredients of
the beverage bases of MAAZA to be manufactured by a third party in
India , known as ‘Varma International’, located in Chittor.

10. ISSUES RAISED
1. Does the Delhi High Court have the jurisdiction over the
matter?
2. Is there any infringement of the trademark or passing off?
3. Is the company‘Varma International’ a party to the case?
4. Is the plaintiff entitled to get the permanent injunction?

12. JURISDICTION
The court had the territorial jurisdiction over the
matter, because the defendant had issued a news
article in Delhi edition of Times of India, and the
reports itself created the jurisdiction of the court
as they showed his intention to use the mark by
way of groundless threat. Also, the defendant had
a factory at Shivaji Marg in New Delhi and the
threat was also given as notice from New Delhi
itself.

13. INFRINGEMENT AND PASSING OFF
There was an infringement of the trademark rights. In the
case of J.N. Nichols (Vimto) Ltd. v. Rose and Thistle and Anr.
(1994), it was said that ‘USE’ of a mark as provided in
Section 2(2)(c)(i) of the Trade Mark Act, does not imply
actual physical sale and mere advertisement, without having
existed goods, can be said to be the use of mark, defining the
intention of the person to use the mark. It depends on two
factors, whether there was a use, and whether it was bonafide.
Therefore, since, the use of mark was malafide to the effect, it
was said to be an infringement of the trademark.

14. VARMA INTERNATIONAL: PARTY TO THE CASE
After an investigation, done by the local commissioners
appointed by the Court, the documents were recovered. It
shows a nexus between defendant no.1, the overseas party
and Mr. Vishal Sharma is operating business under the
name and style of M/s Varma International and exporting
MAAZA products to Australia. It is well settled law that
exporting products from a country, is to be considered as
sale within the country wherefrom the goods are exported
and it amounts to infringement of trade mark. Therefore,
‘Varma International’ was considered a party to the case.

15. PERMANENT INJUNCTION
The suit is not barred under Section 41 (h) and (1) of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the agreement between both
the parties was a determinable contract and plaintiff is
entitled to an injunction for enforcement of its exclusive
rights.
In view of negative covenant under Section 42 of the
Specific Relief Act, the defendant no. 1 is not entitled to
use the mark MAAZA in India.
Hence, the interim order of injunction was granted to prevent the
plaintiff from irreperable loss and injury.

16. JUDGEMENT

18. APPEAL QUASHED
On an appeal filed by the defendant against the order, the Delhi
HC expressly barred Bisleri from selling Maaza products,
however, it is specified that the company may continue to
manufacture Maaza on Indian soil, provided the stock is
exported.

20. Bibliography:
• https://www.clawlegal.org/editorial/the-coca-cola-company-v-bisleri-
international-pvt-ltd/
• https://whitecode.legal/more/ODY0/Coca-Cola-vs-Bisleri-
International-A-case-study
• https://www.clawlegal.org/editorial/the-coca-cola-company-v-bisleri-
international-pvt-ltd/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109517976/