03 Feb The appellants’ product with artistic design and style in Diabliss had been copied by the respondents except by changing the name as Diabeat

Diabliss Consumers Products V/S Dia Health Foods

The present suit is filed by the appellants Diabliss Consumers Products Pvt. Ltd., in the Honourable High Court of Madras before Honourable Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran. [Civil Suit No. 302 of 2018, Decided On: 28.01.2020]

The appellants in the present suit are a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, involved in the manufacturing and sale of consumer goods and food products. The appellants are carrying on business with the trade mark Diabliss. They are also trading various other food products such as Diabliss Sugar, Diabliss Herbal Lemon Tea, Diabliss Mixed Fruit Jam, etc. The appellants state that they have created artistic design for the pouch “Diabliss Diabetic Friendly sugar”.

According to the appellants the respondents entered into an agreement with them as a Distributor, on 10.10.2016, for the products of the appellants and by the same, got access to the pouches of various products of the appellants. The respondents started marketing products on their own by using the name and artistic design of the appellants. This fact came to the notice of the appellants, during a Food Exhibition arranged in New Delhi at Pragati Maidan between March 13, 2018 and March 17, 2018, when the appellants booked stall for their products inclusive of Diabliss sugar.

Further the appellants also highlighted that the respondents complained to the Indian Trade Promotion Organization who was to conduct the said exhibition claiming that the artistic design of Diabliss was that of the respondents’ and that the appellants were contemplating to display their products with the said artistic design in the trade fair and that it would amount to violation of Patent/Trade Mark/Copy Right Act. On receipt of the notice, the appellants came to know that the artistic design was nothing but a replica of the appellants’ artistic design and the same was copied by the respondents.

It is the contention of the appellants that the respondent, who were agents for marketing the product of the appellants’ in North India, had with ulterior motive and object copied the artistic design of the appellants’ and were marketing the sugar under the name of Diabeat with the same artistic design comprising of sugarcane, stems, leaves and flowers in the background, attempting to capture the appellants’ market. Hence the appellants filed the present suit.

As the respondents did not contest the matter, they were set ex parte.
From the evidence produced by the appellants, the court stated that it found the appellants to be the owners of the Diabliss design and using it since 2015. According to the court it was evident from the pouch of the appellants’ and that of the respondents’ that the appellants’ product with artistic design and style in Diabliss had been copied by
the respondents except by changing the name as Diabeat. Further the background, colour, design and get up were also identically similar.

Thus in the said circumstances, the court concluded that the appellants had proved their case and were entitle for the relief prayed. Accordingly, the suit was decreed as prayed for with costs.