Introduction

In the realm of business, trademarks serve as invaluable assets, essentially functioning as a brand's identity in the marketplace. As the global economy increasingly recognizes the significance of intellectual property rights, the protection of trademarks has become a focal point of legal disputes. One noteworthy case that has captured the attention of industry stakeholders and legal experts alike is “Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd. COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.110 OF 2012”, a compelling trademark dispute over the well-known HAYWARDS 5000 beer brand.On December 8, 2025, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay delivered its judgment on this landmark case, analyzing multiple facets of trademark law, including infringement, passing off, and the scope of proprietary rights granted under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The outcome of this case bears significant ramifications not only for the parties involved but also for the broader landscape of intellectual property rights in India.

The Background of the Case

The dispute traces back to the continuous use of the HAYWARDS 5000 trademark by Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. (Plaintiff), whose predecessors had used the mark since 1983 for their beer products. The Plaintiff holds two significant registrations: (i) Registration No. 436744 for the label mark HAYWARDS 5000 in Class 32, and (ii) Registration No. 1521743 for the word mark FIVE THOUSAND in the same class. In 2003, the Delhi High Court classified HAYWARDS 5000 as a well-known trademark, underscoring its popularity and recognized status in the market. Following a deed of assignment by Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. to SKOL Breweries Ltd. in 2005, the Plaintiff continued to utilize the mark in its operations.The situation took a contentious turn when the Defendant, Jagpin Breweries Ltd., began selling beer under the name COX 5000. This move prompted the Plaintiff to seek legal recourse, culminating in a lawsuit filed on January 9, 2012, to prevent further infringement and to recover damages.

The Legal Issues

The court framed several key issues for adjudication, including:

v  Whether the Defendant infringed upon the Plaintiff's registered trademarks by using COX 5001.

v  Whether the Defendant was guilty of passing off its goods as those of the Plaintiff.

v  Questions regarding the Plaintiff's purported misconduct in relation to "suppressio veri" (suppression of the truth) and whether the numeral 5000 is common to the trade.

v  If the Plaintiff consented to the Defendant's use of the numeral 5001.

v  The extent of damages owed to the Plaintiff due to the Defendant's actions.

These issues reflect the complexities involved in trademark disputes, especially in navigating the nuances of established rights versus perceived rights.

The Court's Ruling and Reasoning

·         Registered Rights and Validity: Central to the court's ruling was the verification of the Plaintiff's trademark registrations. Citing certified copies from the Trade Marks Register, the court reaffirmed that the Plaintiff holds valid exclusive rights to the HAYWARDS 5000 label and FIVE-THOUSAND-word marks. Notably, the Defendant's previous attempts to challenge the registration of HAYWARDS 5000 had failed in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).Under Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court reiterated the Plaintiff's statutory rights to prevent infringement of its trademarks within the scope of beer products. This conclusion was bolstered by the prior recognition of HAYWARDS 5000 as a well-known mark, which afforded it further protection under the law.

·         Nature and Use of the Plaintiff’s Marks: The court evaluated the distinctiveness of HAYWARDS 5000, asserting that the mark includes essential and memorable features. Evidence was presented demonstrating the extensive use of the HAYWARDS 5000 mark since 1983 and the adoption of substantially similar labels over the years. The court cited previous decisions, affirming that any modified label maintaining essential features still constitutes valid use of the registered mark.

·         Infringement Analysis: Upon comparing COX 5001 and HAYWARDS 5000, the court found that the numeral 5001 was a dominant feature in both marks, drawing parallels to the distinctive numeral 5000 in the Plaintiff's trademark. This visual and conceptual similarity led the court to conclude that the Defendant's use of COX 5001 constituted trademark infringement.

·         Passing Off: In relation to passing off, the court highlighted that the Defendant’s actions may lead the public to associate COX 5001 with HAYWARDS 5000, thereby undermining the Plaintiff's goodwill and market position. The court's thorough examination established that consumers could be misled into believing that the Defendant's products originated from or were endorsed by the Plaintiff, thus fulfilling the criteria for passing off.

·         Defenses Raised by the Defendant: The Defendant attempted to assert several defenses, including claims of suppressio veri, commonality of the numeral 5000, prior consent from the Plaintiff, and disclaimed exclusive rights in numeral 5000. However, the court dismissed these defenses, ruling that the Defendant had failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims.

·         Awarding Damages and Injunction: Finally, considering the arguments and findings, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, granting them damages amounting to 20 lakhs and a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using COX 5001. This ruling reaffirms the importance of protecting registered trademarks and highlights the repercussions of infringing upon established intellectual property rights.

To know more about this please check the link below.

Implications of the Judgment

The judgment in Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd. carries significant implications for trademark law in India. It emphasizes the necessity for businesses to rigorously protect their intellectual property rights, particularly in highly competitive markets. Furthermore, it serves as a reminder of the legal recourse available to brands for defending their trademarks against infringement and passing off.Businesses should take heed of this case to ensure they are compliant with trademark regulations and to avoid the costly consequences of intellectual property disputes. Companies that rely on distinctive branding must actively monitor their trademarks and swiftly act against any potential infringement to maintain their market position and brand integrity.

Conclusion

The judgment in “Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd. COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.110 OF 2012”, underscores the critical importance of trademark protection in safeguarding brand identity within competitive markets. The court reinforced the necessity for companies to hold robust registration of their trademarks and to act decisively against any infringement to prevent dilution of their brand value. By ruling in favor of the Plaintiff, the court not only upheld the statutory rights granted under the Indian Trade Marks Act but also clarified the standards for evaluating trademark similar use and passing off in commercial cases. This case serves as a precedent for future trademark disputes, emphasizing that established trademarks must be vigilantly defended to maintain their recognized status in the marketplace. Consequently, businesses must be proactive in their trademark registration and protection strategies to navigate the complexities of intellectual property law effectively.