BARISTA COFFEE COMPANY LTD Vs. ASHOK KURIEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining passing off, dilution of trademark, delivery up, damages etc against the defendants. The plaint states that the plaintiff is the owner of the trademark BARISTA under the common law and the Trademark and Mechandize Marks Act, 1958. The said trademark was adopted by the plaintiff in the year 2000 and the plaintiff claims to have established a reputation as source of quality beverages particularly coffee which are retailed from the plaintiff's 120 cafes in 18 cities of India in addition to a variety of snacks and merchandize such as coffee makers etc. The registration of the trademark BARISTA in India is in Classes 9, 11, 21 and 30.

(2.) The word BARISTA is stated to be not only the trademark of the plaintiff but also part of the plaintiff's corporate name and the plaintiff also maintains a website www.barista.co.in. The plaintiff has set out the details of the sales figures for the period 2000-2004 which run into crores.

(3.) The grievance of the plaintiff in the present suit is that a competition by the name of INDIA BARISTA CHAMPIONSHIP was being hosted by defendant no.2 in Bangalore. The plaintiff came across an invitation to the event in January, 2004 The plaintiff sent a legal notices on 19.01.2004 and again on 02.02.2004 objecting to the same. The response of the defendants did not address the issue but only claimed that the defendants were busy with the organization of the event. Not only that, the invitation was also sent to the plaintiff. The defendants finally sent a detailed response dated 09.03.2004 claiming that the plaintiff has been aware of the defendants championship for the past three years which is named after an international event with the mark/name BARISTA which is generic and descriptive in nature. The plaintiff responded by letter dated 04.08.2004 denying any acquiescence. It was however pointed that the BARISTA may mean a coffee brewer but the 'coffee brewer' is not descriptive of the word coffee. The plaintiff has alleged in para 15 that the Championship held by the defendants is sponsored by one of the key competitors of the plaintiff and that appears to have aggravated the matter.