The Calcutta High Court allowed the petition filed by PepsiCo and cancelled the registered trademark “JAY’S” owned by the respondent, holding it phonetically identical and deceptively similar to PepsiCo’s registered trademark “LAY’S” and thus liable for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The petitioner, PepsiCo is a reputed global manufacturer and distributor of beverages and snacks such as LAY’S, CHEETOS, PEPSI, and MOUNTAIN DEW. The “LAY’S” trademark was originally adopted in 1938 and has been continuously used and sold in India since 1965 by PepsiCo and its predecessors.
Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. registered “JAY’S” in Class 30, and the petitioner filed the petition under Section 47 read with Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, seeking cancellation of the trademark registration. The petitioner claimed that “JAY’S” was confusingly similar to its “LAY’S” trademark, which has extensive goodwill and brand equity built over 75 years internationally and in India.
The Bench comprising Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur emphasized that close similarity, visually or phonetically, suffices to prove infringement or grounds for cancellation. The Court observed that “JAY’S” and “LAY’S” are phonetically identical and could deceive the public despite differing packaging or getup.
The Court observed that the registration of “JAY’S” contravened Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act due to its deceptive similarity with “LAY’S”. The respondent failed to provide any justification or credible evidence to maintain their registration.
In result, the Court ordered cancellation of the registered trademark “JAY’S” owned by the respondents. Furthermore, the Court noted that the mark has been adopted with mala fide intent to ride on the petitioner’s reputation.
Cases referred to:
- Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980
- R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar Versus Shri Ambal Co., Madras & Anr., (1969) 2 SCC 131
- Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Usha Proprietor of RS Industries and Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9440
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Varun Kothari, Ms. Urvashi Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent no. 2: Mr. Pramod Kumar Drolia, Advocate.