Case Law Details
ITC Vs Nestle India Limited (Madras High Court)
The dispute between the ITC (Plaintiff) and the Nestle India Limited 9 defendant) in the present suit arises on account of adoption of the expression ‘Magical Masala’ by the defendant for marketing its instant noodles viz.’ Maggixtra -delicious Magical Masala’ in 2013. The plaintiff had earlier introduced Sunfeast Yippee! noodles in two varieties, namely, “Classic Masala” and “Magic Masala” in 2010.
The word “Magic” is laudatory. It is incapable of being appropriated by the plaintiff. As such no person can claim any monopoly over the said word “Magic” or “Magical” or their derivative as they are common to the trade. Therefore, it is incapable of being monopolised by any trader.
In my view, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant can claim the monopoly over the respective laudatory words “Magic” or “Magical” along with common word “Masala” to the exclusion of one another. Therefore, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant can dissect a portion of a label and claim monopoly over it. As such the plaintiff cannot claim monopoly over the expression “Magic Masala”.
It would unfair to take a view that two common English and Indian words “Magic” and “Masala” respectively or when together which are common to the trade former being laudatory had become distinctive of plaintiff’s “Sunfeast Yippee! noodles” so much so that the expression “Magic Masala” had transcended itself to the status of a sub- brand. Even in an ephemeral sense, the expression “Magic Masala” cannot be said to have became distinctive as it is common to the trade.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
