CHAMPAGNE MOET AND CHANDON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this intra-Court appeal, the assail is to the legal pregnability and substantiality of the order dated 19 th May, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 9778/2006.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which are necessitous to be stated are that the appellant is a registered company established under the laws of France and is a well-known manufacturer of wine which it is selling under the trademark 'MOET', 'MOET & CHANDON' and other brands in more than 150 countries of the world. The appellant has stated about the foundation of the company, on the trademark it has attached to it and how eventually it came to be known as 'MOET & CHANDON'. The appellant as early as 1906 brought champagne bearing the mark 'MOET' and since then the said brand of champagne has been sold in India. The appellant holds registration of the trademark 'MOET' in class 33 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short 'the 1958 Act') under No. 396612 with effect from 15 th October, 1982 and for the trademark 'MOET & CHANDON' under Registration No. 439835B with effect from 5 th July, 1985.

(3.) The third respondent, namely, M/s Moet's, a partnership firm operating from 50, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The trademark 'MOET'S' was first coined and adopted by the said respondent in 1967. It is claimed that the said name was adopted from Hindi word 'MOHIT', which was the name of one of the partners. The said trade name, as claimed by the third respondent, by virtue of its long, continuous, extensive and exclusive use, has acquired goodwill and reputation among the public and the trade and is associated and identified by the purchasing public with the name of the said firm. It applied for registration of the trade mark 'MOET'S' in Class 29 on 28 th July, 1986 and its application was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 965 dated 16 th August, 1989. The appellant filed its opposition to the said registration. Certain documents were brought on record by the appellant with regard to its prior registration correspondence, etc.