In a decisive move to protect established trademarks, the Bombay High Court, under Justice R.I. Chagla, has issued an injunction against the use of the “JHAMPA” brand, finding it deceptively similar to the well-known “CAMPA” trademark owned by Reliance Retail Limited. The court’s interim order, delivered on October 24, 2024, restrains defendants Md. Sirajuddin and Beauty Bibi from using “JHAMPA” in connection with their products, a brand alleged to have been crafted to exploit the recognition and reputation of CAMPA in the non-alcoholic beverage market.
Background of the Case
The legal dispute arose after Reliance Retail Limited, a major player in India’s retail and beverage industry, claimed that the defendants had launched “JHAMPA,” a brand remarkably similar to their registered trademark “CAMPA.” Reliance, represented by Senior Counsel Sharan Jagtiani and the legal team from Saikrishna & Associates, argued that “JHAMPA” was not only visually and phonetically similar but also used branding and design choices that mirrored those of CAMPA, potentially misleading consumers and capitalizing on CAMPA’s brand equity.
Reliance acquired the CAMPA trademark and associated copyrights through a Deed of Assignment in August 2022, inheriting a legacy dating back to the 1970s. This acquisition allowed Reliance to relaunch the iconic brand under its own portfolio, backed by significant investment and widespread promotional efforts, aiming to revive CAMPA as a competitive player in India’s soft drinks sector.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented essential questions regarding trademark similarity, deceptive trade practices, and copyright infringement. Reliance’s legal team argued that the “JHAMPA” brand infringed on CAMPA’s trademark rights by merely substituting the “C” in CAMPA with a “J,” creating a name and logo that were deceptively similar to the original. The defendants’ use of similar color schemes and designs further raised the likelihood of consumer confusion, according to the plaintiff.
In court, Mr. Jagtiani emphasized that the defendants’ actions constituted “a clear and deliberate attempt to exploit the goodwill and reputation associated with the CAMPA brand.” The plaintiff claimed that, following an initial cease-and-desist notice sent to the defendants in August 2024, the defendants responded with a refusal to discontinue the use of “JHAMPA” and subsequently filed for their own trademark application under that name.
Court’s Findings and Decision
After reviewing the evidence, Justice Chagla determined that Reliance had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement. In the judgment, he noted, “The impugned trademark ‘JHAMPA’ is visually, phonetically, and structurally deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark CAMPA.” Justice Chagla observed that the defendants’ actions could lead to substantial consumer confusion, thus harming both Reliance’s brand and the public’s ability to distinguish between the two products.
The court further acknowledged that intellectual property violations of this nature demand swift judicial intervention. Justice Chagla stated, “In matters of blatant violation of intellectual property rights, a prompt order of injunction must be granted to protect not only the interest of the Plaintiff but also that of the public at large.”
The injunction restrains the defendants from manufacturing, distributing, or advertising products under the “JHAMPA” brand or any other mark that resembles CAMPA. Specifically, the court order includes restrictions against using the “JHAMPA” logo, trade dress, and any design elements that replicate CAMPA’s brand identity. This injunction will remain in force until further hearings, scheduled for November 27, 2024.
The defendants, represented by Mr. Pritish Chatterjee, have been granted time until November 18, 2024, to file an affidavit in reply. Further arguments from both parties are anticipated at the next hearing, with the injunction in place to maintain the status quo in the interim.
