TATA v/s TAZA

I was going through a recent judgement from the Delhi High Court passed on April 13, 2023. It dealt with packaged drinking water marketed by TATA Consumer Products Limited, a member of the TATA group. The label as extracted from the judgement is depicted below:

The defendant who did not appear before the Honourable Delhi Court was marketing packaged drinking water under the mark “TAZA WATER PLUS”. The label on the bottle of the defendant as extracted from the judgement is also depicted above.

Clearly, the two labels are similar and the intention of the defendant was very clear, i.e. to copy the TATA mark and the Honourable Judge rightly granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling packaged drinking water under the impugned label. However, this decision cannot be a precedent to establish that the Hindi word “TAZA” or “TAAZA” meaning fresh is deceptively similar to the well-known trademark TATA. ?

In my opinion, the overall similarity of the two labels and the colour scheme resulted in the injunction which was rightly granted. However, in an article discussing this case an observation of the Honourable Judge who passed the order has made headlines for the wrong reasons.

The Honourable Judge observed that “consumption of packaged drinking water which may be of inferior quality could lead to fatalities.” ?My humble suggestion is that observations of this nature can affect an industry as a whole. In a country where the quality of drinking water itself is an issue, to single out “inferior” packaged drinking water causing harm is a cause for concern. Highlighting such observations distract the reader from the main issue of trademark and copyright infringement and passing off.