The Coca-Cola Company Vs Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd.

The Coca-Cola Company
vs
Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd.
In Delhi High Court , 20 Oct 2009
Presented By : Aditya Kumar ( 200040011)

Prerna Agrawal ( 200010057)
❏ Introduction
● Plaintiff ( Coco Cola) : Leading multinational
corporation in the soft drink industry,
operating in 200 countries.
● Defendant No.1 (formerly known

as Aqua Minerals Pvt. Ltd.):
Subsidiary of the Parle group of
Industries.
❏ Background to Case
❖ Transfer of intangible assets on September 18,
1993:
❖ Sellers: Mr. Ramesh Chauhan and Mr. Prakash
Chauhan, owners of Bisleri.
❖ Purchaser: Coco Cola
● Trademarks
● Formulation rights
● Proprietary knowledge
● Intellectual property rights
● Goodwill
➢ Products involved: THUMBS UP, LIMCA,
GOLD SPOT, CITRA, MAAZA
● Defendant No.1, which was earlier known as Aqua Minerals Pvt. Ltd., was a part
of Parle group of Industries.
● 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 executed between both parties to
finalize the sale for a substantial sum of money. These agreements included the deed
of assignment, goodwill assignment, know-how agreement, confidentiality and non-
use agreement, non-compete agreement, and general assignment
● As a result of these agreements, the plaintiff was granted the right to sell the product
Maaza within the territory of India.
● The defendant No. 1 has the trademark rights for MAAZA in other
countries where it has been registered.
● In March 2008, Defendant No. 1 became aware of the Plaintiff's filing for
the registration of MAAZA in Turkey.
● In response to the Plaintiff's filing, the Defendant No. 1 sent a legal notice
to the Plaintiff, terminating the licensing agreement and revoking all
other selling rights.
● The Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Defendant for permanent
injunction and damages for trademark infringement and passing off.
● The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant disregarded the irrevocable and absolute rights
granted to the Plaintiff.
● The Plaintiff also claims that the Defendant authorized a third party, Varma International
located in Chittor, India, to manufacture certain ingredients for the MAAZA beverage base
without proper authorization.
● This unauthorized manufacturing by a third party is considered an infringement of the
Plaintiff's rights.
● The Plaintiff is seeking compensation for the damages caused by the Defendant's actions,
including any profits made from the unauthorized use of the MAAZA trademark.
● The defendant, In Response said that Plaintiff was only authorize to use the trademark, IPR,
only In India ,not outside India.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.
❏ VARMA INTERNATIONAL: PARTY TO THE
CASE
● Local commissioners appointed by the Court conducted an investigation and
recovered documents.
● The documents revealed a connection between defendant no. 1, the overseas
party, and Mr. Vishal Sharma who was operating a business under the name of
M/s Varma International and exporting MAAZA products to Australia.
● It is established law that exporting products from a country is considered as a
sale within that country and amounts to trademark infringement.
● As a result, Varma International was considered a party to the case.
❏ Issues Raised
● Does the Delhi High Court have the jurisdiction over

the matter?
● Is there any infringement of the trademark or
passing off?
● Is the company ‘Varma International’ a party to the
case?
● Is the plaintiff entitled to get the permanent
injunction?
❏ COURT’S DECISION
● The defendant demanded vacation of the court's order on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction,
but the Indian Penal Code has extra-territorial jurisdiction, and thus the Delhi High Court
has jurisdiction in this matter.
● The Delhi High Court restricted the sale of the Mazza product by Bisleri in India and
passed an interim order of injunction against the defendant, Bisleri, to prevent them from
using the trademark in India and exporting merchandise.
● It was held that Bisleri still had the right to sell products in other countries, but the court
should have passed an injunction only for its sale in India and not for exports.
❏ COURT’S DECISION
● Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd has registered the trademark of Mazza worldwide, while
Coca-Cola Company owns the trademark of Mazza only in India, making it unjustified
for them to claim an injunction on the manufacture for exports.
● Verma International was found to be exporting the product with a trademark to

Australia, leading to an infringement of trademark, as the product was manufactured
in India and considered to be a sale made in the nation.
● The Court upheld the injunction against Verma International to prevent further sales
and prevent The Coca-Cola Company from incurring losses
❏ Conclusion / Lessons to be learned
● The Case highlights the importance of trademark protection in
Intellectual Property Rights.
● This case serves as a reference for interpretation of what constitutes
use under Trademark Law, court jurisdiction, and infringement of
Trademark.
● The court's decision to hold Varma International liable for trademark
infringement underlines the significance of respecting the territorial
rights of trademark owners.
● It is crucial for every trademark owner to be aware of and exercise
caution in protecting their Intellectual Property rights.
Thanks
List of references
● https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109517976/
● https://desikaanoon.in/case-analysis-on-the-coca-cola-company-vs-bisleri-international-pvt-
ltd-2009-164-dlt-59/
● https://lawessential.com/ip-case-laws/f/coca-cola-v-bisleri-international-pvt-ltd-ors-case-
study
● CREDITS : This Presentation template was created by Slidesgo, Including icons by
Flaticon, Images by FreePik
● Bisleri and Coco Cola Logo taken from : https://upload.wikimedia.org/

The Coca-Cola Company Vs Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Coca-Cola Company Vs Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Coca-Cola Company Vs Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Coca-Cola Company

Presented By : Aditya Kumar ( 200040011)

● Defendant No.1 (formerly known

● Does the Delhi High Court have the jurisdiction over

● Verma International was found to be exporting the product with a trademark to

You might also like