CASE OF RECYCLED BEER BOTTLES AND INFRINGEMENT

ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC V. MR. SURJEET LAL & ANR

Brief Facts

In this case, plaintiff is in the business of manufacturing and selling of beer called ‘BUDWEISER’ and has filed a suit against the defendant. The Defendant, M/s. SOM Distilleries and Breweries Ltd are also a manufacturer and seller of beer under the marks ‘Black Fort’ and ‘Power Cool’. The plaintiffs complaint is that the bottles of beer manufactured by the Plaintiff with the embossed word ‘BUDWEISER’ are being used by the Defendants by re-labeling them as ‘BLACK FORT’ and ‘POWER COOL’ which would create an impression on the mind of the consumer that defendants product belongs to the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff is seeking permanent injunction from court to restrain the defendant from selling, exporting, importing and distributing the glass bottles with the embossed word ‘Budweiser’ or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff s trade mark amounting to passing off of the Defendants’ goods as that of the Plaintiff and it would also amount to unfair competition and dilution and tarnishment of the goodwill, and reputation of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s Contentions

• An order for damages of Rs. 2,00,05,000/- be passed in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants on account of the unauthorized use of the impugned marks and a decree for the said amount be passed in favor of the Plaintiff.
• An order for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the Defendants on account of the selling or offering for sale its beer in the bottles embossed with the Plaintiffs trade mark “BUDWEISER” and a decree be passed for the amount found due in favor of the Plaintiff on such rendition of accounts; and
• An order of deliver up to the Plaintiff all the bottles embossed with the trade mark “BUDWEISER”

Defendant’s Contentions

• It was submitted by the learned counsel that, the bottles had come into the Defendant’s system through kabadiwalas, and therefore, entered the manufacturing line of the Defendant’s Company
• In view of the large volume of the bottles that are cleaned, filled and bottled, there may have been stray bottles of ‘BUDWEISER’ which may have been accidentally used by the Defendants.
• Defendants were willing to give an undertaking to the effect that the bottles of ‘BUDWEISER’ shall not be used by it for manufacture and sale of their own beer.

Legal Analysis

The court observed that the bottles of the plaintiff with Budweiser embossed are still available in the market. So, the defendant needs to take further checks to ensure that the beer bottles with mark ‘BUDWEISER’ are not re-labeled and are marked with defendant’s brand. Thus, a restraint order was passed against the Defendants from using any bottles with the mark ‘BUDWEISER’ and an affidavit was also directed to be filed. In the case of M/s. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Rangar Breweries Ltd. , the court granted permanent injunction against the use of the Plaintiff’s trademark ‘Officer’s Choice’ by the Defendant. In the said case, the Plaintiff had raised a grievance that the Defendant’s products are being sold with the Defendant’s own label. Thus, the Plaintiff claimed that the bottles could be recycled bottles of the Plaintiff, but the Defendant has no right to be using the same for the purpose of manufacture and sale of their own product.  

Conclusion

The court held that, the sale of any product with the recycled bottles of another manufacturer would result in infringement and passing off. Though the bottle itself may be a genuine bottle which may have been put by the Plaintiff originally in the market, after the contents are consumed and the bottle reaches the recycling cycle, the Defendant’s use of such bottles which have the Plaintiff’s trade mark embossed on them would cause confusion as to its source. However, since the defendant has given an undertaking before this court as mentioned above, the assurances and undertakings given by the authorized signatory of the Defendant Company are taken on record and accepted. In view of the undertakings given by the Defendants, the Plaintiff agrees not to press the relief of damages, rendition of accounts of profits and delivery up.