PARLE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WEAVER AQUA EVERFLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the plaintiffs in a suit for preventing passing off action.

(2.) According to the case of the plaintiffs, in the year 1992 they adopted a trade mark "Bailley" for their packaged drinking water. According to the case of the plaintiffs the word "Bailley" was coined by them and the said word was a fancy word. The plaintiffs commenced sale of the packaged drinking water under the said mark "Bailley" with effect from January 1993. The case of the plaintiffs is that their packaged drinking water sold and marketed under the mark "Bailley" very soon became immensely popular. The case of the plaintiffs is that having regard to their reputation, excellent quality of the product, cleanliness and hygienic standards adopted by the plaintiffs and the safety of the product, the plaintiffs, packaged drinking water sold under the mark "Bailley" became market leader in the packaged drinking water segment. The plaintiffs claim that for the financial years 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 the sales turn over of the brand "Bailley" was Rs. 26.51 crores, Rs. 27.26 crores and Rs. 59.06 crores respectively. Further case of the plaintiffs is that they have spent substantial amounts on advertisement pertaining to the said brand "BAILLEY". The case of the plaintiffs is that they are manufacturing and/or marketing various products such as bacteria free water, mineral water, aerated water, packaged drinking water and the word "Bailley" happens to be the most prominent feature of the said products. The plaintiffs are placing reliance on registration of the trade mark "Parle Bailley Minerale", "Parle Bailley Aqua", "Parle Bailley Mineral Water", "Parle Bailley", "Parle Bailley Soda", "Parle Bailley Aqua" under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

(3.) According to the plaintiffs, they are selling the packaged drinking water in bottles having different capacity; viz. 250 ml; 1 litre and 2 litre and large dispensing bottles/jars having capacity of 20 litre. The case of the plaintiffs is that the dispensing bottles/jars having capacity of 20 ltrs. has a unique shape, size and design which is created by the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the uniqueness of the design of the bottles/jars rests in its distinctive shape, configuration and design.