The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, restrains the Defendant from using an identical mark as that of the Plaintiff.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, restrains the Defendant from using an identical mark as that of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is aggrieved by the use of an identical trade mark by the Defendant despite being restrained by the Court.

The Plaintiff is a Hungarian company, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of energy drinks. The Plaintiff claims to have adopted the trade mark HELL in the year 2006 along with a logo, trade dress and artistic work. The colour scheme used by the plaintiff is depicted below:

The Plaintiff submits that business of the Plaintiff is promoted through the website www.hellenergy.com, which was registered on 11th June, 2006, while the mark HELL is registered in the name of Plaintiff since 2007 in class 32 in respect of ‘energy drinks and non-alcoholic beverages’ in several countries. The Plaintiff further submits that the Plaintiff also holds registration of the said mark HELL in India under no. 3618893 in Class 32 in respect of ‘energy drinks’ since 2017. The Plaintiff avers that the said mark is extensively publicized in F-1 races and it enjoys global goodwill and reputation.

The Plaintiff’s grievance is that the Defendants were initially using the mark ‘HELLxxx’ in respect of energy drinks and had also filed a trademark application in the year 2021 for HALL ENERGY DRINKS bearing No. 4909717 in respect of ‘energy drinks, soft drinks, and aerated drinks’. The Plaintiff had filed a suit, being, CS(COMM) 254/2021 titled Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft. v. Shri Brahm Shakti Prince Beverages Pvt. Ltd., wherein, the Court had granted an ex parte ad interim order of injunction, vide order dated 1st June, 2021, and had restrained the defendant, its directors, agents, licensees, franchisees, representatives, employees, affiliates, stockists, distributors or anyone claiming under them from manufacturing, marketing, selling, storing and advertising the trade mark ‘HELLxxx’ and ‘HALL Energy drink’, from infringing the Plaintiff's trade mark HELL and its variations and the Plaintiff’s copyright in its product packaging/trade dress and/or using any trade mark, copyright, trade dress deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trade mark, copyright, trade dress in the mark HELL and/or passing off their goods as that of the Plaintiff till the next date of hearing.

The parties had also entered into a settlement agreement which clearly records that the Defendants acknowledged the Plaintiff’s rights in the mark ‘HELL’/ ‘HELL ENERGY’ and other variants. Further, the Defendants confirmed and undertook that they would not manufacture, sell or advertise products under the impugned mark ‘HELLxxx’, ‘HELL ENERGY DRINK’, or any other confusingly or deceptively similar trademark.

On the basis of said settlement agreement, the suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff. Despite this being the position, the Defendants were found to be in violation of the terms of settlement and launched another product by the name ‘HILLxxx’ which is depicted below:

The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants are habitual infringers of various well-known products. The Plaintiff submits that a market survey was conducted by the Plaintiff which revealed that the Defendants had flooded the market with their products under the mark ‘HILLxxx’. The Court again considered the suit and passed a second order of injunction against the Defendants, and observed that the perusal of record and also the physical products which have been handed over to the Court, leave no manner of doubt in the mind of the Court that the mark ‘HILLxxx’ used by the Defendants is almost identical to the trademark ‘HELLxxx’ which was earlier being used by the Defendants and was injuncted by this Court.

The Court opined that the new mark adopted by the Defendants is also almost identical to the mark of the Plaintiff and the Defendants are prima facie in violation of a decree passed by this Court. Thus, the Plaintiff has made out prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and the balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. The Court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, promoting or advertising or in any manner dealing in any beverages or energy drinks or any cognate or allied goods under the mark ‘HILLxxx’ or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s mark ‘HELL’ ‘HELL ENERGY’, etc.