This document summarizes a landmark intellectual property rights case in India between Coca-Cola and Bisleri International. The case involved a dispute over the trademark "Mazza" and whether Bisleri could manufacture and export Mazza products. The Delhi High Court ruled that it had jurisdiction and issued an injunction preventing Bisleri from selling Mazza in India. It was determined that exporting products with the trademark was considered a sale in the exporting nation and constituted infringement. The court also held exporter Verma International liable for infringing on Coca-Cola's trademark.

1. DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATE SECRETARYSHIP
I- M.COM (CS)
SWATHI S
232CR008
Dr. N.G.P. ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE
(An Autonomous Institution, Affiliated to Bharathiar University, Coimbatore)
Approved by Government of Tamil Nadu and Accredited by NAAC with 'A' Grade (2nd Cycle)
Dr. N.G.P.- Kalapatti Road, Coimbatore-641048, Tamil Nadu, India
Web: www.drngpasc.ac.in | Email: info@drngpasc.ac.in | Phone: +91-422-2369100

2. • Intellectual property rights (IPR) refers to the legal rights given to the inventor or creator to
protect his invention or creation for a certain period of time.
• These legal rights confer an exclusive right to the investor/creator or his assignee to fully utilize
his invention/creation for a given period of time.
• There are 4 types of intellectual property rights and they are patents, trademarks, copyrights, and
trade secrets.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

3. PATENTS: A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a
process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical
solution to a problem. To get a patent, technical information about the invention must be disclosed
to the public in a patent application.
TRADEMARK: A trademark is a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one
enterprise from those of other enterprises. Trademarks are protected by intellectual property
rights.

4. COPYRIGHT: Copyright is an intellectual property right that law gives to a creator of literary,
dramatic, musical, and artistic work and a producer of cinematograph films and sound recordings.
It also applies to architectural works and computer program/software.
TRADE SECRET: Trade secrets are intellectual property (IP) rights on confidential information
which may be sold or licensed. In general, to qualify as a trade secret, the information must be:
commercially valuable because it is secret, be known only to a limited group of persons.

5. Case Study: Coca-Cola Company Vs. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd.
CASE STUDY

6. • The case Coca-cola vs. Bisleri international is a landmark judgment in the history
of intellectual property rights in India.
• Bisleri International which is famous for bottled water was a defendant in this
case and the case was filled by coca-cola company, the largest company to
produce soft drinks, here, is a plaintiff.
• There was a dispute between Coca-cola and Bisleri international over a trademark
of Mazza, popularly known as the Mazza war.
INTRODUCTION

7. • On 18 September 1993 defendant, Bisleri International earlier known as Aqua
Minerals Pvt Limited sold its, intellectual property rights to five other brands
called Thums Up, Limca, Gold Spot, Citra, and Mazza.
• The intellectual property rights include trademark, formulation rights, goodwill,
and know-how.
• In 2008, the plaintiff filed an application for registration of the trademark
‘MAZZA’ in Turkey.
• After intimation of this information to the defendant, the defendant sent a legal
notice to the plaintiff renouncing the Licensing agreement and terminating the
plaintiff from further production of product Mazza or using its trademark directly
or indirectly.
FACTS

8. • The notice said that plaintiff had breached the agreement by applying for
registration of trademark ‘MAZZA’ in Turkey.
• However, it was also found by The Coca-Cola Company that Bisleri had allowed
third-party companies interventions such as Verma International and M/s. Indian
Canning Industries and had been selling the products in Turkey via Aqua Minerals
now known as Bisleri.

9. Issues raised in Delhi High Court were :
1. Whether Delhi High Court has jurisdiction over this matter?
2. Has infringement of trademark occurred?
3. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a permanent injunction?
4. Whether export of the products with the trademark “MAZZA” considered a
trademark infringement in the exporting nation?
5. Is ‘Varma International’ a party in this case?
ISSUES

10. • According to Sections 41(h) and 41(l) of the Specific Relief Act 1993, the suit
cannot be barred as there was a detrimental or consensual contract between the
two parties. And therefore the plaintiff is entitled to get a permanent injunction in
order to fulfil and enforce their exclusive rights.
• And according to section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1993, the defendant
company is not entitled to use the trademark ‘MAZZA’. It says that “the plaintiff
will be entitled to the injunction if they had performed their part of the contract as
was binding on them.” This means the plaintiff will get an injunction if he has
done or completed his part of the contract.
RULES

11. • The argument made by the plaintiff was as the trademark MAZZA was assigned to
coca-cola in the Indian market. Any production or manufacture of a product with
this trademark to sell in India or to export to another nation would be considered
an infringement of trademark and IPR laws.
• In the counter-argument, the defendant argued that, as the product is sold in
Turkey and not India there was no infringement of the plaintiff’s right. It was
further argued that the defendant has registered the trademark MAZZA worldwide
and so it has the authority to sell its product anywhere in the world.
ARGUMENTS

12. Identical or Perplexingly Similar: The contested domain name incorporates the
Complainant's trademark COCA-COLA, as well as the second-level domain
characters ".eu" and the generic top-level domain extension ".com." Neither the
second level nor the gTLD characters differentiate the domain name – that is, the
Complainant's patented COCA-COLA is the domain name's only distinguishing
attribute. The contested domain name is confusingly identical to the Complainant's
trademark, according to this Panel.
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS

13. Legitimate Interests vs. Rights: The absence of a provision for a registrant of a
third-level domain name in the.eu.com> domain to determine eligibility to the
domain name (or, as the Respondents put it, the absence of “restrictions” on
registration) does not imply that registration alone confers a right or legal interest in
the domain name. The Respondents have not presented any proof of any fact that
would determine they have a right or legal interest in the contested domain name,
and considering the Complainant's significant prestige in the COCA-COLA
trademark, this is particularly troubling, It is difficult to imagine the Respondents
have some right or legal interest in the domain name. The Respondents have no
rights or legal interests in the contested domain name, according to this Panel.
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS

14. Used in bad faith: The testimony shows that the first Respondent tried to transfer
the contested domain name to the Complainant in order to collect money for the
second Respondent's nascent political group. This data clearly supports the
argument that the Respondents registered the domain name solely to sell, rent, or
otherwise pass it to the Complainant for lucrative compensation in excess of
recorded out-of-pocket expenses specifically related to the domain name. According
to the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(i), this Panel determines that the disputed domain name
was registered and used in bad faith.
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS

15. • The defendant demanded the vacation of the court’s order on the grounds that this
court does not have the jurisdiction.
• However, according to the criminal law perspective, the Indian Penal Code (1860)
has an extra-territorial jurisdiction wherein an offence committed by an Indian
citizen on a foreign land will still hold that person liable.
• So according to this principle, Delhi high court has jurisdiction in this matter.
• The goods were manufactured in India and getting sold in Turkey due to this the
court has the power to take up this matter.
COURT’S DECISION

16. • The Delhi high court restricted the sale of Mazza product by Bisleri in India and
an interim order of injunction was passed against the defendant company Bisleri
preventing them to use the trademark each purchasable in India and export
merchandise.
• It absolutely was worn out in order to stop the plaintiff from suffering irreparable
loss and injury and the appeal filed by the Bisleri company was invalidated by the
court.
COURT’S DECISION

17. • It was also held that the manufacture of goods was meant to be for the sale in
other countries and Bisleri still had the right to sell products in other countries, the
court should have passed an order of injunction only for its sale in India and not
for the exports.
• Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd has registered the trademark of Mazza all over the
world whereas coca-cola company owned the trademark of Mazza only in India
and suddenly if it tries to take all the rights and trademark throughout the world
then it would be unjustified on their part to claim an injunction on the manufacture
for exports.
COURT’S DECISION

18. • And upon investigation, it was found that Verma International was exporting the
product with a trademark to Australia.
• The Court also held that there was an infringement of trademark because the
product was manufactured in India and then exported and in export, it is
considered to be a sale made in the nation, thus making Verma International a
party to the case.
• The Court further upheld the injunction against Verma International to prevent it
from making any further sales and costing The CocaCola Company a lot of
money.
COURT’S DECISION

19. • Trademark is one of the crucial aspects of IPR. It covers brand names and uses to
signify business and products which cannot be used by any other company.
• Bisleri was neither held liable for manufacturing and exporting the product nor
sharing the secret ingredients with Verma International due to a lack of proof.
• There is a high probability that bisleri has shared the secret beverage base with
Varma International.
• However, Varma international was held liable for infringement of trademark laws
and was restricted from exporting or selling the product of the coca-cola company
illegally.
CONCLUSION