Comments
The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition of global sports drink and protein beverage maker Gatorade, claiming exclusive right on the use of expression. “Rehydrates Replenishes Recharges” for its product and sought to restrain Heinz India from using it.
A bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha dismissed the plea of Gatorade’s owner Stokely Van Camp, who challenged the orders of the Delhi High Court.
On November 10, a division bench of the High Court had dismissed the plea to restrain Heinz India from using the expression, “Rehydrates Replenishes Recharges” for its energy drink Glucon D Isotonik.
Camp was the original producer of Gatorade sports drink brand that was purchased by the Quaker Oats Company in 1983.
In 2001, Quaker was acquired by PepsiCo. As of 2009, Gatorade is PepsiCo’s 4{+t}{+h}-largest brand, based on worldwide sales.
Heinz, which had launched its energy drink in February, 2010 was using expression “Rehydrates Fluids; Replenishes Vital Salts; and Recharges Glucose” on its product.
Camp had alleged that the expression was “deceptively similar” to its registered mark and may create confusion among its customers.
However, the High Court had observed that the packaging of the two products was quite different and there was no confusion among the customers.
It further said that it has already decided in the Marico case that descriptive trademark should not be given protection.
“Rehydrates, Replenishes and Recharges” is in fact an expression and it is clearly a descriptive trademark. There should be discouragement from giving protection to such descriptive trademarks,” the High Court had said.
It had also observed that Heinz was “prominently using” its trademark ‘Glucon D Isotonik’ in a most prominent manner in its packaging and not the expression, hence there was no confusion.
“In view of the above, we find that the appeal is not liable to succeed. The appellants do not have a prima facie case in their favour in view of the above discussion. The balance of convenience is in favour of the Heinz, who will be caused grave and irreparable injury if the injunction as prayed for is granted,” the high court had said.
Comments
COMMENT NOW
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.