Parle Agro ordered to pay Rs. 10 lakh and tender an apology for failing to comply with injunction directives related to the "For The Bold" tagline.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has imposed exemplary costs on Parle Agro Private Limited for non-compliance with court orders in an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Pepsico Inc. The court found Parle Agro guilty of failing to adhere to directives that required the company to cease using the tagline "For The Bold" and submit sales revenue certificates.
Presiding over the case, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela emphasized the importance of adhering to judicial orders to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The court held that while Parle Agro's failure to remove certain social media posts was deemed inadvertent and not wilful, its omission to file sales revenue certificates constituted a serious violation of the court's order.
The dispute revolves around Pepsico's claim of trademark infringement against Parle Agro, accusing the latter of using its registered tagline "For The Bold" in advertising campaigns for its "B Fizz" beverage. The court had previously directed Parle Agro to refrain from using the tagline and to submit revenue certificates every two months.
Despite Parle Agro's contention that the non-compliance was unintentional and due to oversight, the court noted inconsistencies in affidavits filed by the company, which undermined its position. The court acknowledged that while the omission of certain social media posts from 2022 could be attributed to oversight, the failure to submit revenue certificates as ordered was inexcusable.
In addition to imposing a cost of Rs. 10,00,000, payable to 'BHARAT KE VEER', the court has directed the deponent of Parle Agro's affidavits to tender an unconditional apology within four weeks. The court's decision underscores the judiciary's resolve to uphold the sanctity of its orders and ensure compliance by all parties involved.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the legal consequences of disregarding court orders and reinforces the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the rule of law.
Bottom Line:
Trademark infringement - Failure to comply with a court's order to cease the use of a tagline and submit sales revenue certificates amounts to a violation of the court's directives, even if not wilful, and may attract penalties.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 12, Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Pepsico Inc. v. Parle Agro Private Limited, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2883711
