No monopoly rights to 'Magic Masala': Madras High court

Putting an end to an over seven-year-long legal dispute between ITC's Sun feast Yippee! and Nestle India's Maggi noodles, the Madras High Court has ruled that to promote their noodles brands neither of them can claim a monopoly over the words 'Magic Masala' and 'Magical Masala' to describe their products. ITC that began the legal battle back in 2013, after Nestle began using 'Maggi Xtra-delicious Magical Masala' to market its noodles framed charges against Nestle. Both the companies cannot claim the monopoly over the laudatory words 'Magic' and 'Magical'.

“Justice C. Saravanan said they are general English and Indian words and both the companies cannot claim the control over them as these words are laudatory and common to the trade, nobody can claim an exclusive right over their use. Therefore, it is incompetent of being monopolized by any trader. He also added that inroads made by ITC in the instant noodles segment with use of the expression Magic Masala were perhaps on account of the attractive pricing of its instant noodles as compared to Nestle. It was also because ITC has a very strong market and brand presence.”Therefore, both the companies cannot claim the monopoly over the laudatory words 'Magic' and 'Magical'. Also, he said suggestive expression such as 'Magic Masala' used in Sun feast Yipee noodles since 2010 could have become a distinctive mark entitled for protection & monopoly, only if it had been used uninterrupted for a long number of years. Whereas in the present case, Nestle had pre-empted such a move by using 'Magical Masala' in Maggi in 2013 itself.

'Magic Masala' is not a registered trademark. In fact, that if ITC had filed a trademark application to register the expression "Magic Masala" as a word mark, it would have been rejected by the trademark registry under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.  The court observed, Both the companies cannot claim the monopoly over the laudatory words 'Magic', 'Magical' along with the common word 'Masala' to the exclusion of one another. It was also observed that the expression 'Magic Masala' is commonly used in the food and cosmetic industry. It is not a coined or invented word. It is inherently not a distinctive word or a descriptive term which directly and clearly conveys information about ingredients, qualities, and characteristics of the product or services are not protectable at the first instance but may qualify for protection if it has assumed a secondary meaning and identifies as a particular product or as being from a particular source It, in fact, observed that the expression was first adopted by Lays for their potato chips. It is a general name for describing the mixture of spices in the majority of the Indian languages. Therefore, it can never be appropriated.

ITC, in its petition in 2013, claimed that the noodles with the expression Magic Masala was a runaway success and had cornered about 12.5 percent of the market share in the instant noodles segment within three years. It entered the instant noodles market with two variants – Yippee! Magic Masala, and Classic Masala. ITC said that it had been selling Sunfeast Yippee! Noodles in the 'Magic Masala' variety since 2010. It, therefore, filed a suit in the high court demanding an injunction against Nestle from using 'Magic Masala' or any other similar term for its product. It had also asked for damages of over 10 lakhs. Nestle argued that both the expressions have been used as a flavor descriptor and therefore are incapable of being protected. The term 'Masala' implied a blend of ground flavors utilized in Indian cooking and it couldn't be appropriated. Neither the plaintiff party nor the respondent could guarantee a monopoly over the articulation 'Magic' or 'Magical' alongside the regular word 'Masala'.

ITC, alleged that Nestle India copied the phrase by slightly tweaking it as saying 'magical' instead of 'magic'. By doing this, it said, the company wanted to "cheat unwary and gullible customers" into buying their product instead of ITC's. The court also noted that ITC did not intend on using 'Magic Masala' as a brand or sub-brand. It said that the brand was 'Sun feast Yippee!' and that 'Magic Masala' was only used to describe the flavor and overall color scheme, layout, style and get up of the two products were dissimilar. Further, after comparing the wrappers of Sun feast Yippee Noodles Magic Masala & Maggi Xtra delicious Magical Masala, the Judge found them to be completely distinctive without any scope for confusion between them. As there is no visual or ocular similarity between the two wrappers, there is no scope to infer passing-off from a ocular or visual comparison of the two labels. However, such adoption of the expression cannot be said to be mala fide.



Comments

Post a Comment

If you have any doubt just let me know

Popular posts from this blog

Image
Coercion Section 15  defines Coercion as follows : Coercion is committing or threatening to commit an act that is prohibited by IPC, or any unlawful detaining or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with an intention of causing any person into entering a contract. It is immaterial whether IPC is in operation at a place where such act took place. Illustrations A threatens B at gun point to sell his land to A. A while in an English ship on high seas enter into a contract with B by intimidating B that is unlawful in India. Later on A sues B of breach of contract in Calcutta. This is coercion. Chikham Amiraju vs Chikham Seshamma 1912  - Husband threatened to suicide unless wife gave property to his brother. This was held coercion. Askari Mirza vs Bibi Jai Kishori 1912  -  Threatening a criminal prosecution is not coercion per se. It could be coercion if the threat is to file false charges. Astley vs Reynolds 1731  - Plaintiff had pledged his place
Read more!

Residuary Powers (Art. 248)

Article 248: "Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in List II or III. Such power shall include the power of making any law imposing a tax not mentioned in either of those lists" (It is to be noted that before independence, Governor-General, and not the federal legislature, which had such powers). Entry 97 of List I also lays down that Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any matter not enumerated in List II or III. Article 248 and Entry 97, List I, assign residuary powers of legislation exclusively to the Union Parliament. If no entry in any of the three lists covers a piece of legislation, it must be regarded as a matter not enumerated in any of the three lists and belonging exclusively to Parliament under Entry 97, List I. By virtue of Art. 248, Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in List II or List III, and for this purpose, and to avoid any
Read more!

आत्मनिर्भर भारत - Self Reliant India

Image
Atmanirbharta or self-reliance is the new catchphrase for the Indian economy. It sounds new but is actually the earliest initiative of economic policymakers after this country attained independence. It flowed from the motto of swadeshi and boycott of colonial foreign goods that was an integral part of the freedom movement. The general public thus had no problem in accepting the ideas of self- reliance and import substitution advocated by Jawaharlal Nehru and his advisors as a critical element of economic policy. It gelled well with the theme of independence, not just from the colonial masters, but from imperialistic powers everywhere. In practice, of course, import substitution became one more element of red tape under the licence raj system that evolved under Nehru and his successors. It is with a sense of trepidation that one views the latest clarion call to achieve the goal of atmanirbharta. The last stimulus package was even described as the Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan. These
Read more!

amazon