Justice R.I. Chagla found that the defendant’s trademark, “Jhampa,” was prima facie deceptively similar to the “Campa” Cola mark, issuing an interim injunction against its use.
The Bombay High Court has recently issued an ad-interim temporary injunction against a beverage company utilizing the “JHAMPA” trademark, which the court determined to be deceptively similar to the well-established “CAMPA” brand owned by Reliance Retail Ltd, a subsidiary of Reliance Industries. This ruling prohibits the defendant beverage company from employing the contested mark while the trademark infringement lawsuit is ongoing.
In his interim order, Justice RI Chagla, sitting on a single Bench, acknowledged that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement. He stated, “On a preliminary basis, the contested trademark ‘JHAMPA’ is visually, phonetically, and structurally deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark CAMPA. The contested trademark pertains to the same goods for which the Plaintiff holds registration of its CAMPA trademarks and has been actively using them.”
The Court also observed that the artistic works of the defendant company bore substantial similarities to those of the plaintiff, which are safeguarded by copyright, thereby raising concerns regarding potential consumer confusion. This case is linked to Reliance’s acquisition of the ‘Campa’ cola brand in 2022 from Campa Beverages Private Limited. Campa has been a prominent name in India since its launch in 1977 and is now part of a portfolio owned by the Reliance-backed retail entity.
The defendant, another beverage company, adopted the “Jhampa” mark for its non-alcoholic beverages, prompting Reliance to initiate legal action alleging infringement of its trademark and copyrights. During the proceedings, Reliance asserted that the defendant’s use of “Jhampa” was a calculated effort to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the Campa brand. It contended that the two marks were nearly indistinguishable and that the defendant’s product packaging, including logos and color schemes, closely mirrored the plaintiff’s registered artistic works.
The defendant contended that “Jhampa” merely referred to a village and was not meant to mislead consumers. Nevertheless, the Court deemed this argument unpersuasive, particularly given that the defendant submitted a trademark application for “Jhampa” subsequent to the plaintiff’s issuance of a cease-and-desist notice.
After considering the arguments from both parties, the Court issued an order to the defendant, prohibiting it from “directly or indirectly infringing, adopting, using, offering for sale, manufacturing, distributing, selling, advertising, depicting, displaying, in the course of trade and/or business/service, the Applicant’s Trademarks including the registered trademark ‘CAMPA’.”
Additionally, the defendant was barred from utilizing any “deceptively similar trademark or variant thereof” concerning any non-alcoholic beverages or other products.
Moreover, the Court restricted the beverage company from infringing upon the plaintiff’s artistic works, which included logos, trade dress, color combinations, and slogans that were found to be “identical and/or deceptively similar” to the registered artistic designs of the Campa brand.
These directives specifically encompassed the use of the contested marks in advertisements, marketing or promotional materials, notices, circulars, letterheads, and signages, whether in print or online, including on social media platforms.
Justice Chagla, while granting the interim relief, remarked that, “The balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff, and unless the requested reliefs are granted, the Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable injury.”
The defendant company has been instructed to submit its affidavit in response by November 18, 2024. The Court has scheduled the next hearing for November 27, 2024, and the injunction will remain effective until that date.
Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani, along with Advocates Hiren Kamod, Thomas George, Niyati Fatehpuria, Neeti Nihal, and Siddharth Joshi, instructed by Saikrishna & Associates, represented the plaintiff.
