Allied Blenders & Distillers Limited v. Boutique Spirit Brands Private Limited and Another
In this case, the dispute revolves around the name ‘KYRON & MYRON’, where the petitioner engaged in the manufacturing of alcoholic beverages, and adopted the mark ‘KYRON’ for brandy and other spirits. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s mark ‘MYRON’ is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark named ‘KYRON.’ ‘KYRON’ was adopted in 2010, used since 2012 and registered in various categories for brandy and spirits. Not only that the petitioner’s brand is also registered internationally under multiple jurisdictions. Due to its unique packaging, quality and distinctiveness, the petitioner’s brand holds international recognition and registrations. It has received awards for its quality and distinctiveness around the globe.
The defendant’s mark was held phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark. The term ‘KYRON & MYRON’ ends with the same suffix RON,’ which makes it phonetically, and visibly similar to each other. This similarity may mislead the customers as the plaintiff’s brand has already established itself in the market as a reputed product. In 2023 the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using ‘MYRON’. The Delhi high court has granted a permanent injunction cancelling the defendant’s registration for ‘BSN MYRON’. The respondent is restricted to using ‘MYRON’ or any mark similar to ‘KYRON’.
The court applied the ‘ordinary consumer with imperfect recollection test’ and gave its observation that the similarity in the name of the two marks and the engagement of both parties in the same industry that is alcoholic beverages targeting identical customers may cause confusion. The two words ‘MYRON & KYRON’ share near identical pronunciation, they rhyme with each other well, which is likely to cause confusion in the mind of the customer. The suppression of ‘BSB’ in usage highlighted the dishonest emphasis on the conflicting element ‘MYRON’. Moreover, the petitioner’s continuous use of the mark since 2012, which pre-dated the respondent’s registration that is since the 2021 application has strengthened the claim. The court has supported the prior-use claim of the plaintiff, overriding rights, even against subsequent registrations. The defendant lacks evidence of genuine intent, non-appearances for hearing or defending himself signalled trademark squatting. The court after carefully analysing the facts inferred the mala-fide intent from the respondent’s suppression of ‘BSB’ and failure to defend a claim akin to an implied admission of guilt. The court while pronouncing its decision opined that the mark‘s dominant element determines similarity, not the minor element (in this case the term ‘BSB’).