PepsiCo Wins Case Over Aquafina Trademark

Soft drink giant Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd has won a legal battle in the Delhi High Court over the trademark 'Aquafina' used for its packaged drinking water.

A bench of Justice G S Sistani restrained PSI Ganesh Marketing from using "deceptively similar" trademark 'Aqua Fies' and causing infringement of rights in the trademark and copyright.
The court also awarded damages to the tune of Rs 5 lakh to Pepsico India on account of illegal activities of PSI Ganesh Marketing and ordered destruction of all the infringing goods within 4 weeks.

"On the basis of the documents placed on record, the plaintiffs have established that PepsiCo is the owner of the trademark, trade name, logo and label 'Aquafina' and the plaintiff have the exclusive right to use the same," the court said.

"The impugned trademark of the defendants is deceptively similar to the PepsiCo's trademark. The use of the word 'Aqua Fies' by the defendants is likely to dilute the distinctive character of the plaintiffs trademark 'Aquafina' and the same is likely to erode the goodwill and reputation of PepsiCo among its existing as well as potential customers in the market," it said.

Pepsico said that the Aquafina product was launched in India as early as 1999 and it is a unique word coined and exclusively adopted by it.

It also said that under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, all rights in the label are owned by the plaintiffs and the said label is distinctive and is an original artistic work under Section 2 (c) of the Copyright Act.

The court held that "the adoption and use of the identical and/or deceptively similar trademark by the defendants in relation to identical products amounts to an infringement of the plaintiffs statutory rights in the registered trademark 'Aquafina'".

The judge held that the defendants were also guilty of passing off as by using an identical mark as that of the PepsiCo and were misrepresenting to the purchasing public that it was selling its goods in association with/in connection with the plaintiffs.

The defendants were thus causing confusion as to the source of the goods and passing them off as that of the plaintiffs, he said.

"Furthermore, the defendants in a mala fide, dishonest and an unethical manner are encashing upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs, established by the latter over the period of many years," it said.

Story first published on: June 19, 2014 17:14 (IST) on Profit.Ndtv.Com

Vijay Mallya Suffers Legal Setback in F1 Car Ad Case

Mumbai: The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by Vijay Mallya to overturn charges against him for allegedly violating foreign exchange rules, adding to the legal challenges facing one of the country's most prominent businessmen.

The country's enforcement directorate, responsible for fighting financial crime, has alleged Mr Mallya entered into an unauthorised agreement in 1995 to advertise the Kingfisher beer brand name on racing cars during Formula One championships between 1996 and 1998.

Mr Mallya is chairman of United Breweries which makes Kingfisher beer and is now around 40 per cent owned by Dutch brewer Heineken. The directorate has said he did the advertising deal without seeking permission from the central bank.

Such clearance would have been needed because the agreement involved money going out of the country.

Lawyers for Mr Mallya, who is also facing pressure from lenders to repay dues linked to his grounded carrier Kingfisher Airlines, had told the court that the non-compliance was not deliberate or wilful, according to the court documents.

The country's top court on Monday rejected the appeal in the long-running case and could now force him to face the enforcement directorate charges. A spokesman for Mr Mallya declined to comment on the court judgement.

Mr Mallya remains involved in Formula One as a co-owner of the Force India team.

Mr Mallya's business empire previously included India's largest spirits company United Spirits Ltd, but he sold most of his shares in the company and gave management control to Britain's Diageo Plc in 2012.

In April, the board of United Spirits begun a procedure to remove Mr Mallya as the company's chairman due to alleged financial irregularities. Mr Mallya has denied the allegations and has refused to resign.

C Thomson Reuters 2015"

Story first published on: July 13, 2015 22:48 (IST) On Profit.Ndtv.Com

Bharti Airtel loses legal case in Nigeria, shares falls

Shares of Bharti Airtel were under pressure after its Nigerian unit lost a legal battle against African telecom operator Econet.

Bharti said it will lodge an appeal with the country's Supreme Court. Econet now wants over $3 billion from Bharti.

Bharti Airtel's shares ended 2 per cent lower at Rs 296 as compared to a 1 per cent fall in broader markets.

The case pertains to a 2006 deal in which Celtel, a unit of Zain, bought a 65 per cent stake in Vmobile Nigeria. Zain's African assets were later acquired by Bharti. Econet owned 5 per cent in Vmobile and claims right of first refusal on Vmobile. Econet now wants over $3 billion from Bharti, which inherited the legal tussle after it acquired Zain's assets for $9 billion.

Harit Shah, senior research analyst at Nirmal Bang Securities, says though Bharti has the option of moving the Supreme Court, the case can be an overhang now. (Watch)
"Nigeria is the largest market for Bharti in Africa. And if Bharti loses the case it will be a big negative for the company, adding to its balance sheet stress," he added.

Story first published on: February 20, 2014 14:08 (IST) on Profit.Ndtv.Com

Legal Case woned by a Tea Vendor Fought Against India's Largest Bank

Source: NDTV.Com

Never underestimate the power of a common man - let this tea vendor from Bhopal show you why.

Rajesh Sakre would have you believe he is a regular guy, except he has just fought and won a case against one of India's largest banks.

Mr Sakre who has only studied till Class five, challenged the government-run State Bank of India back in 2011, when he realized that a sum of Rs. 9,200 was missing from his bank account.

According to a report in Bhopal Samachar, Mr Sakre had Rs. 20,000 in his account, from which he withdrew a sum of Rs. 10,800. However, on his next ATM visit he realized his account had been wiped clean. 

Mr Sakre went to one of the Bank's branches to complain but the officers shrugged, and blamed him for the mess. He then made an appeal to the bank's Mumbai headquarters, but it didn't work. As a last resort, he filed a case in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. 

He didn't have enough money to hire a lawyer, so he went head to head with the bank's lawyers to fight his own case in court.

The bank insisted that it was Mr Sakre who had withdrawn the amount in question. But they could not produce any evidence like CCTV footage to back their claim.

After about a dozen hearings, Mr Sakre won the battle.

On June 16, the consumer court ruled in his favour and ordered the State Bank of India to return Rs. 9,200 along with 6% interest within two months. In addition to this, the bank also has to cough up Rs. 10,000 for the mental anguish they caused their consumer and another sum of Rs. 2,000 for his legal expenses.

Mr Sakre's story should inspire many who just let such matters slide, instead of taking proper legal action.

Supreme Court vacates interim order of Madras High Court legal cases

Source: http://www.legallyindia.com/blogs/supreme-court-vacates-interim-order-of-madras-high-court-on-the-issue-of-patta-to-forest-dwellers

The Supreme Court has on February1, vacated the interim order dated April 30, 2008 granted by the Madras High Court staying the issue of patta under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA) on an application filed by Ministry Tribal Affairs. Court observed that since except for the state of Tamil Nadu, in all other states, the inquiry regarding the various claims under FRA proceeded substantially, there was no justification to hold up the inquiry only in the State of Tamil Nadu. The FRA was challenged before the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition (C) No. 4533 of 2008. By the aforesaid interim order, High Court had directed that the process of the verification of the claims under FRA can go on but no certificate of title should be issued pursuant to such verification without obtaining the orders of the High Court. After FRA was challenged before the Supreme Court, the writ petition before Madras HC came to be transferred to the SC. In a press release, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India said: While the Forest Rights Act is being implemented across the country it had come to a standstill in the State of Tamil Nadu as the Madras High Court had passed an interim order dated 30.4.2008 whereby the High Court had directed that no patta/title under FRA shall be issued without the permission of the High Court in WP (C) No.4533 of 2008. Soon thereafter the Ministry of Tribal Affairs filed a petition for transfer of this writ petition to the Supreme Court and also filed a Special leave petition against the interim order of the High Court. Thereafter, the Ministry had also persuaded the State Government of Tamil Nadu to file an application for vacation of the interim order. A three judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Shri Justice Jasti Chelameswar, Shri Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Shri Justice Amitava Roy heard the matter yesterday. Shri PS Narasimha, Additional Solicitor General appeard for the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India and submitted that when the FRA is being implemented across the entire country, there is no need for such an order to restrict its operation in only one State. The Court was inclined to agree with the aforesaid submissions, and accordingly passed a detailed order setting aside the interim order dated 30.4.2008 passed by the Madras High Court. Till date approximately 44.12 lakh claims have been filed and more than 17.10 lakh titles have been distributed in the various States with the exception of the State of Tamil Nadu, where the implementation of FRA has been at a standstill thus far. Though 21,781 claims have been filed in the State of Tamil Nadu and 3,723 titles are ready for distribution, the State Government had, till now, not been able to distribute the titles due to the stay order of the Madras High Court being in force. Now, with the vacation of the interim order, it is anticipated that the filing and processing of claims and recognition of forest rights in the State of Tamil Nadu will gather speed and the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and the other traditional forest dwellers in the State of Tamil Nadu can look forward to their forest rights being finally recognised, vested and recorded.