Summary
On December 8, 2025, the Bombay High Court granted a permanent injunction to AB Inbev against Jagpin Breweries for using the mark "COX 5001" in relation to beer, finding it deceptively similar to the registered trademarks "HAYWARDS 5000" and "FIVE THOUSAND". The court held that numerals like "5000" can be essential trademark features.
On 8th December 2025, the Bombay High Court granted Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. a permanent injunction against Jagpin Breweries Ltd., restraining the latter from using the mark “COX 5001” in relation to beer. The court held that this mark infringed the plaintiff’s registered trademarks “HAYWARDS 5000” and “FIVE THOUSAND” and amounted to passing off, emphasizing that numerals like “5000” can form essential features of a trademark and that slight modifications such as “5001” do not avert deception.
Background
The plaintiff, Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., is the registered proprietor of two trademarks for beer in Class 32: the label mark “HAYWARDS 5000” and the word mark “FIVE THOUSAND”. These marks have been in use since 1983, initially by the plaintiff’s predecessor, Shaw Wallace. “HAYWARDS 5000” was declared a well-known mark by the Delhi High Court in 2003. In 2011, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had begun selling beer under the mark “COX 5001”, where the numeral “5001” was prominently displayed. The plaintiff filed a commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction, damages, and reliefs for trademark infringement and passing off.
Issues before the Court
-
-
- Whether the defendant’s use of “COX 5001” infringes the plaintiff’s trademarks “HAYWARDS 5000” and “FIVE THOUSAND”?
- Whether the defendant’s use of “COX 5001” amounts to passing off?
- Whether the numeral “5000” is common to the trade and publici juris?
- Whether the plaintiff has disclaimed exclusive rights in the numeral “5000”?
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages?
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction?
-
Arguments of the Plaintiff (AB Inbev)
AB Inbev contended that it held valid registrations for “HAYWARDS 5000” and “FIVE THOUSAND” in Class 32 for beer, with Jagpin’s rectification application against the former dismissed by the IPAB in 2011 unassailed. It argued that “5000” was an essential feature of its composite label mark, protected under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, entitling exclusive use and restraint against deceptively similar marks. AB Inbev asserted that Jagpin’s “COX 5001” was deceptively similar, with “5001” as the leading feature conceptually close to “5000” and “FIVE THOUSAND”, especially for identical goods, citing prior decisions like Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Mohan Rocky Spring Water Breweries Ltd. It submitted that infringement arises from adopting essential features, assessed by overall impression, not minute differences, relying on Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. vs Wockhardt Ltd. AB Inbev denied abandonment, stating continuous use of substantially similar labels constituted valid use under Section 55. For passing off, it highlighted extensive use since 1983, nationwide sales, advertising, and well-known status, arguing “COX 5001” would mislead consumers, with likelihood of confusion sufficient per Rustom & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. It claimed Jagpin’s adoption was dishonest, lacking registry search as required in Bal Pharma Ltd. v. Centaur Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., and sought damages of Rs. 20 lakhs or accounts of profits.
Arguments of the Defendant (Jagpin)
Jagpin contended that it adopted “COX 5001” in 2007 and used it continuously for beer. It argued the marks “HAYWARDS 5000/FIVE THOUSAND” and “COX 5001” were dissimilar. Jagpin claimed AB Inbev never used and abandoned its registered label “HAYWARDS 5000” (No. 436744). It asserted no rights in “5000” as it was common to the trade and publici juris. Jagpin submitted that registration No. 436744 granted no exclusive right over “5000”, which was disclaimed. It alleged AB Inbev suppressed other “5000” registrations and its own applications for “5000”. Jagpin claimed AB Inbev consented to “COX 5001” use and was estopped per a statement in its 2006 plaint.
Court’s observations and analysis
On Trademark Infringement Claims
The court stated that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of both “HAYWARDS 5000” and “FIVE THOUSAND”, and holds exclusive statutory rights to their use under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It observed that “5000” is the dominant and essential feature of the mark and has acquired distinctiveness. The court found that “5001” is conceptually and visually similar to “5000” and that the rival goods (beer) are identical. It held that the defendant’s mark “COX 5001” infringes both of the plaintiff’s registered trademarks.
On Passing Off Claims
According to the court, “HAYWARDS 5000” has substantial goodwill, and the public associates “5000” with the plaintiff’s beer. It held that the defendant’s use of “5001” leads to misrepresentation and is likely to cause confusion, especially when applied to beer bottles where the number can be visually deceptive. It reiterated that actual confusion need not be shown; a likelihood of confusion is sufficient.
On Common Usage and Disclaimers
The court said the defendant did not provide evidence to prove that “5000” is common to the trade. It also held that no specific disclaimer for “5000” existed in the registry, and general disclaimers do not impact public perception. As per the court, disclaimers do not negate the effect of the mark’s dominant features in infringement or passing off analysis.
On Damages and Injunction
The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to damages and/or an account of profits due to the defendant’s unauthorized use. It also held that the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using “COX 5001” or any mark deceptively similar to “HAYWARDS 5000”.
Conclusion
The court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions restraining Jagpin, its directors, servants, agents, stockists, distributors, and dealers from infringing AB Inbev’s trademarks Nos. 436744 and 1521743 by using “COX 5001” or any mark with “5001” or deceptively similar in Class 32 for beer, and from manufacturing, selling, marketing, distributing, exhibiting, or advertising such beer to pass off as AB Inbev’s. It awarded costs of Rs. 10,00,000/- to AB Inbev but denied damages of Rs. 20 lakhs or accounts of profits due to lack of evidence on quantification or actual loss.
Case Citation: Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd., Commercial Suit No.110 of 2012, decided on 8 December 2025, Bombay High Court. Available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116622317/
