Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. V. Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. V. Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

CS(COMM) 144/2022 & I.A. 3585/2022

Decided on 7 July 2022

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In March 2018, the plaintiff launched an advertising campaign called "ZIDDI HOON MAIN" on various social media platforms. The campaign included several words and slogans such as 'ZIDD' and 'ZIDDI', 'ZIDDIS DON'T WAIT', 'ZIDDI HOON MAIN', 'ZIDD WARS', 'NAAM HAI ZIDDI', and 'PHIR SE ZIDD KAR' in their commercials. The videos were posted on YouTube and received a huge response, going viral and garnering millions of views.

However, in 2022, the plaintiff was dismayed to find that an advertisement for a deodorant named "REALMAN" was conceptually and visually similar to their campaign. The defendant adopted a tagline that was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's "ZIDDI PERFUME", and some of the frames in the commercial were identical to those in the plaintiff's campaign, suggesting a copyright infringement of cinematographic works. The defendant also imitated some of the distinctive features of the plaintiff's commercial, such as the dark setting with only a few lights, the protagonists working out with a gym rope and boxing bag, and the yellow and white text on a black background.

PLAINTIFF CONTENTIONS:

The defendant has copied the look and feel of the plaintiff's advertisements. They have used the word "ZIDDI" with the same yellow-on-black background colour combination, which is identical to the plaintiff's. By using the tagline "ZIDDI PERFUME", the public will associate the defendant with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has registered the trademark "MUSCLE BLAZE" along with "ZIDDI" and "ZIDDI HOON MAIN" in classes 38 and 44, respectively. The copyright of the script, screenplay, soundtrack, lyrics, and video images belongs to the plaintiff. Therefore, even if the defendant has used some extracts, it will still amount to copyright infringement in a cinematograph film. The plaintiff's commercials have gained significant recognition due to various celebrity endorsements. Thus, the exclusive use of the mark "ZIDDI" belongs to the plaintiff.

DEFENDANT CONTENTIONS:

The plaintiff cannot claim exclusive rights or a monopoly over the disputed trademarks "ZIDD" and "ZIDDI" as they have been used in various earlier campaigns and films. Additionally, the activities displayed in the commercial, such as working out with ropes, boxing, cycling, running, and gyming, cannot be monopolized by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not registered any trademarks in class 3 pertaining to perfumes and deodorants, which makes the disputed trademarks dissimilar to each other.

ANALYSIS BY HON'BLE COURT:

The current case revolves around three disputed elements. Firstly, the defendants have imitated the entire concept, look, and feel of the marks "ZIDD" and "ZIDDI". Secondly, the clippings shown in the plaintiff's commercial are exactly identical to what the defendant showed in their commercial, leading to copyright infringement. Lastly, the defendants tried to pass off their goods by promoting the same advertisement campaign under the "ZIDDI PERFUME" mark.

The impugned advertisements are identical to each other, and this can cause confusion or deception among the general public. The use of similar colour combinations (black and yellow), identical texts ("ZIDD" and "ZIDDI"), and exhibiting identical actions done by the protagonist create a nexus between the plaintiff and the defendant.

If viewers assume an association of the goods sold by the defendant as an affiliation with the plaintiff, then it will become a clear case of passing off the goods to the plaintiff, in addition to copyright infringement.

The advertisements can be protected on the basis of distinctiveness or if they create deception or confusion among the public with respect to the source of goods. However, there will not be any remedy of injunction against the advertisement campaigns as it creates a roadblock to creativity.

In the preceding paragraphs of the judgment, the Hon'ble Court held that there exists no monopoly over the words "ZIDD" and "ZIDDI" by virtue of being descriptive in nature. Furthermore, there can be no monopoly over the activities exhibited in the advertisements, such as the protagonist working out in the gym and another protagonist working out with the punching bag. However, it is significant to note that the expression of ideas should be different depending upon the person to person.

DECISION BY HON'BLE COURT:

During a recent ruling, Justice Pratibha M. Singh ordered the defendants to take down all the controversial advertisements from all social media platforms where it was uploaded. Despite this, the defendant is permitted to modify and remove all the disputed parts from www.youtube.com as well as every other social media platform where the same has been uploaded for public viewing. However, the defendant's commercial must be dissimilar to that of the plaintiff's commercial. The defendant can use the words "ZIDD" and "ZIDDI" in the context of their perfumes and deodorants but cannot be identical or similar to that of the plaintiff. Furthermore, these words and expressions cannot be used as a trademark.

CONCLUSION:

The Hon'ble Court ruled in favour of Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. against Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. in a case of copyright infringement. The court found that Vini Cosmetics' ad for "REALMAN" deodorant was similar to Bright Lifecare's "ZIDDI HOON MAIN" campaign, leading to confusion and deception. The defendants were ordered to take down all controversial ads from social media and refrain from using identical or similar trademarks. The ruling aims to protect intellectual property rights and ensure fair competition.