In the case of Iconic IP Interests LLC and The Hershey Company (collectively, “plaintiffs”) versus Sarju Confectionery LLP (“defendant”), the Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction and awarded damages, finding that the defendant’s use of the mark “JOKY RAMPER” and its packaging constituted infringement, passing off, and exploitation of the plaintiffs\u2019 goodwill associated with the “JOLLY RANCHER” mark.<\/p>\n
Plaintiff no.1, Iconic IP Interests LLC, is the licensor of intellectual property rights for the “JOLLY RANCHER” marks, while plaintiff no.2, The Hershey Company, manufactures and markets the associated confectionery products. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant\u2019s “JOKY RAMPER” products copied their trade dress, including color schemes, stylization of marks, and pictorial elements. The defendant\u2019s mark was also phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to “JOLLY RANCHER,” causing a likelihood of consumer confusion.<\/p>\n
Despite being duly served with legal notices and summons, the defendant failed to respond or appear in court, resulting in an ex parte proceeding. Based on the uncontested evidence, the Court found that the plaintiffs proved their ownership of the trademarks and copyright over the trade dress, and established instances of trademark infringement and passing off by the defendant.<\/p>\n
The Court issued a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products bearing the infringing mark and packaging. Additionally, damages of INR 2,00,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs, along with the right to recover litigation costs to be determined by the taxation officer.<\/p>\n
The Court declined to declare “JOLLY RANCHER” a well-known trademark in this summary proceeding but allowed the plaintiffs to pursue this relief in future cases.<\/p>\n
Citation:<\/strong> Iconic IP Interests LLC & Anr. v. Sarju Confectionery LLP, CS(COMM) 656\/2023, Delhi High Court (Nov. 8, 2024). Available at: https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/46181132\/<\/a><\/p>\n The case note in this blog post has been generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the same has been reviewed by the IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.<\/p>\nDisclaimer<\/h4>\n