Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr V Balraj Muttneja & Ors.
Brief Facts
There are 2 plaintiffs in this case, the plaintiff 1 is M/s Disney Enterprises Inc. which is a corporation organized and existing in the United States of America and is the creator of a number of world-famous characters such as Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck, Daisy Duck, Winnie the Pooh etc. and has acquired exclusive rights over the use and authorise the use of such characters as they have several registered trademarks and copyrights subject to these characters. The plaintiff 2 is M/s The Walt Disney Company (India) Pvt. Ltd which is the Master Licensee in respect of the Disney Enterprises Inc. Materials in India. The plaintiffs have been manufacturing, trading and selling a wide variety of products/services for over fifty years all across the world, have earned immense goodwill and reputation. In November, 2012 plaintiff discovered that Defendant 1, Mr. Balraj Muttneja and Plaintiff 2, Mr. Jaspan Mutneja are operating a business along with Defendant 3, M/s J.J. International which is a manufacturing unit and Defendant 4, M/s Balraj International which is the distribution outlet, for manufacturing and selling confectionary items such as chocolates etc. under the brand name „Tasty Bear‟ bearing the plaintiff’s Materials like Winnie The Pooh, Tigger, Eeyore and Piglet, without the consent/authority of the plaintiffs. And thus, plaintiffs are seeking permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from using the plaintiff’s Disney Enterprise Inc. Material and to pay damages in the sum of Rs.20,00,100/-
Legal Analysis
The court appointed two Local Commissioners to visit and inspect the premises of the defendant 3 and defendant 4 respectively for the purpose of making an inventory of the infringing goods/merchandise, if, any found, and for seizing and sealing the same. On the visit, the commissioners observed that a lot of packaging and wrapping material bearing Disney Characters were kept in the premises of defendant 3 and similarly in the premises of defendant 4 the characters were displayed both on the box and the individual chocolate wrapping paper. Hence, the court concluded that the defendants are using identical and/or deceptively similar characters on their goods/merchandise and thereby infringing and diluting the registered trademarks as well as violating the copyrights of the plaintiffs with respect to the said characters. The court also observed that t the defendants have refrained from using the character names of the plaintiffs and have also not mentioned anything on the packaging of their goods that would suggest that the product is of plaintiffs. Rather, the defendant has manufactured the goods in their own brand name; there is a distinct possibility of the use of the characters of the plaintiffs on the goods of the defendants being an innocent adoption.
Conclusion
The court held that, the rights of the plaintiff would be adequately protected by grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling confectionary items such as chocolates etc. bearing upon its packaging or wrappers any trade mark which is identical or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs, or any artistic work in which the plaintiffs have a copyright. The court also ordered the defendants to deliver the infringing goods which were seized and sealed by the Local Commissioners from the premises of defendant 3 and defendant 4.
DUCTUS EDGE 