FRITO LAY INDIA Vs. AMIT GOSWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff No. 1 is a subsidiary of Pepsico India Holdings Limited which in turn is a subsidiary of plaintiff No. 2 Pepsico Inc., a Corporation existing under the laws of the United States of America. Plaintiff No. I is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a variety of snack products including potato chips. With a view to promoting its snack food products plaintiff No. 1 launched a promotional compaign by giving free collectibles in the form of round discs with or without grooves with each packet of its Lays & Chectos chips. Though it is alleged in the plaint that this promotional compaign for promotion of the snack food products of the plaintiffs is prevalent in several countries in the world since 1992-93, in India the compaign was launched in or about September, 1998.

(2.) Defendant No. 2 is also a leading manufacturer of potato chips being marketed under the name and style of "Uncle Chipps". In order to boost the sale of its products defendant No. 2 in March, 1999 also started its promotional programme by distributing free collectibles in the form of round discs. While the discs being distributed by the plaintiffs were known as TAZO, defendant No. 2 started distributing free collectibles in the form of discs under the mark of AMAZZO. This attempt on the part of defendant No. 2 to distribute free collectibles in the form of round discs was alleged to be a deliberate act of piracy and copying of the disc being distributed by the plaintiffs in which the plaintiffs allegedly had a copyright. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed this suit for injunction restraining the defendants from issuing free collectibles in the form of circular discs with or without grooves with their products under the mark AMAZZO or any other mark.

(3.) It was alleged by the plaintiffs that not only that the defendants were trying to encash upon the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs in the promotional compaign of distribution of free discs but the free discs being distributed by the defendants were also an attempt on their part to infringe the copyright of the plaintiffs in the discs and also an attempt to pass off its products as those of the plaintiffs. The further attempt of defendant No. 2 to distribute its disc under the mark AMAZZO was also alleged to be unfair competition on the part of the said defendant inasmuch as not only that the disc being distributed was similar but there was phonetic similarity in the two marks. Alongwith the suit the plaintiffs filed an application for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from issuing free collectibles in the form of circular discs with or without grooves with their products under the mark AMAZZO or another mark which was identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' mark TAZO. By this order I propose to dispose of this application of the plaintiffs for the grant of an ad interim injunction.