Introduction[1]:
Plaintiff has filed for the permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from using the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “FRAPPUCCINO,” including the “BROWNIE Chips FRAPPUCCINO” mark or any other similar trade mark in connection with the plaintiff’s products and services.
The Plaintiff:
Plaintiff is a lifestyle brand company founded in 1985 under the name “STARBUCKS CORPORATION”. Its predecessor in interest established its first retail location in Seattle, Washington, in 1971, selling a range of coffee, tea, and spices under the name “Starbucks.” In 1987 it opened its first retail outlet outside of Seattle, as well as in other cities across the United States and in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Furthermore, it is claimed that the plaintiff sells its hugely well-liked hand-crafted blended cold beverages all over the world under the registered trade mark “FRAPPUCCINO” and its variations. In several nations, they are also offered in a variety of flavours in bottled form.
Additionally, it is claimed that the plaintiff distributes bottled coffee beverages to numerous third-party supermarket, retail, and wholesale outlets across the world, as well as 30,626 “Starbucks” locations in 80 countries and territories. For the numerous nations where drinks bearing the “FRAPPUCCINO” mark are sold in “Starbucks” outlets, the plaintiff creates unique tastes. The plaintiff claims that it has spent a sizable sum on advertising and marketing for its goods and services, including those sold under the “FRAPPUCCINO” marks, and that its worldwide sales statistics for the different items sold under “FRAPPUCCINO” markings range in the billions of US dollars.
The plaintiff asserts that he entered into an agreement with “Tata Coffee Ltd.” in January 2011 to form an equity joint venture to build retail shops in India. The joint venture business “Tata Starbucks Private Limited” was subsequently established on September 30, 2011, and the plaintiff launched its first location in Mumbai in October 2012. Since then, the plaintiff has increased its footprint in India by opening at least 145 “Starbucks” locations in different Indian cities. The plaintiff has also successfully registered the trade mark “FRAPPUCCINO” in India in a number of classes; further information is included in paragraph 23 of the complaint.
The claim:
The plaintiff claims that during the third week of November 2018, it came to the plaintiff’s attention that the defendant number 2 was running a cafe/restaurant in Jaipur, Rajasthan, using the defendant number 1’s name, and that a drink going by the name of “BROWNIE Chips FRAPPUCCINO” was being sold there without the plaintiff’s knowledge, consent, or licence. The defendants were also using the term “Frappucino” in their establishment’s electronic menu cards, which are also placed to third-party listing portals like “Zomato” and “EazyDiner” for marketing and advertising.
The director of defendant number 2 allegedly promised the plaintiff’s attorney over the phone that they would stop using the mark “FRAPPUCCINO” and that they would alter their electronic menu cards that are posted on third-party portals like “Zomato” and “EazyDiner.” However, it was discovered through an internal inquiry that the defendants continued to market their goods using the disputed trade mark. The plaintiff claims that the defendants are guilty of passing off their products as those of the plaintiff in addition to violating the plaintiff’s registered trade mark.
Court Proceedings:
The defendants were served with summons in the case by order of this court dated 23.08.2019, and an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in the plaintiff’s favour, prohibiting the defendants from using the “FRAPPUCCINO” mark in any way on any of the items they sell.
Despite being served with summons the defendant did not file the written statement and the court proceeded exparte on 28.11.2019. On February 26, 2020, a lawyer for the defendants appeared before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) and the counsel for the parties submitted that the case is likely to be settled amicably and pleaded for more time.
In order to obtain a Summary Judgment against the defendants, the plaintiff thereafter filed an application, designated as I.A.13114/2022, in accordance with Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applicable to commercial disputes of a defined amount. This Court published notice of the application on August 22, 2012, giving the defendants three weeks to submit a response. However, neither the defendant’s response to the aforementioned application or the defendant’s attorney was in court on November 1, 2022.
Court Orders:
The court decreed permanent injunction and the plaintiff are also considered to be entitled to the lawsuit’s expenses. In addition to the court cost, the plaintiff has submitted an “Advocate Fee Certificate” with a legal fee of Rs. 13,38,917.85 levied by the attorney. The same is found to be reasonable and is thus awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
[1] STARBUCKS CORPORATION V. LOL CAFÉ & ANR. CS(COMM) 452/2019 & I.A.11495/2019
DUCTUS EDGE 