Amul Celebrates its first win of Trademark Case in Canada

 

The federal court of Ontario, Canada permanently barred a company Amul Canada from infringing the Trademark and Copyright of the plaintiffs i.e Kiara district Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Limited and Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.- owners of the Trademark “AMUL” (India’s Largest Food Brand).

Justice Alan S. Diner held that the defendant company infringed the trademark and copyright of the plaintiffs and awarded damages of $10,000 for Trademark and $5000 for copyright and a lump sum amount of $17,733 for legal cost on solicitors and client.

Justice Diner ordered Defendant to transfer the amount within 30 days of judgment and also ordered to transfer ownership and all right access to all social media pages including LinkedIn and their domain names controlled by the defendants displaying the plaintiff’s copyright and Trademark.

He observed that the Defendant's Trademark is causing confusion amongst the mind of the public in Canada when they commenced their business. They further observed that the mark of the Defendants was similar to the mark of the plaintiff which was causing confusion in the minds of the public.

 Upon finding of the similar mark, plaintiffs approached the federal court for the infringement of their Trademark and copyright in Canada through Amul Canada’s Linkedin website, advertising their product and using their brand image, name and corporate information.

Plaintiff’s Argument

Plaintiffs argued that their Trademark “AMUL” is a well known mark in India and is known in India, Canada and the rest of the world. 

They claimed that their Trademark “AMUL” is the world’s largest vegetarian cheese brand and pouched milk brand and is a well known mark in India.

They further claimed that they have been continuously advertising, selling and distributing AMUL Trademarked goods in Canada since 2010 and Kaira was the registered Trademark owner of the Canadian Trademark Registration for AMUL since June 30, 2020 in association with the goods “Milk Products”.

AMUL also owned the Trademark and Copyright of the slogan “AMUL THE TASTE OF INDIA” and “AMUL PASTEURIZED (SIC) BUTTER UTTERLY BUTTERLY DELICIOUS”.

Plaintiffs further stated that these Trademarks and slogans are well recognized in India, Canada and all over the world. 

They further stated that their brand is distinctively famous in Canada for their quality products. 

By observing the above statements and arguments the court stated that, “They have acquired goodwill starting in India and then through the years around the world. The Plaintiffs allege that there is also goodwill in Canada, at least amongst Canadians of Indian origin".

The plaintiffs seeked from the federal court to restrain defendants from advertising its products, marketing, offering for sale, selling and providing goods identical to the plaintiff’s goods in Canada with the trademarks with trade names AMUL and AMUL CANADA Limited through Linkedin.

"The defendants are not only using the exact marks and designs belonging to the plaintiffs, but they are claiming to be the plaintiffs, through copying the information available on the AMUL websites regarding the Plaintiffs’ background and activities."

Plaintiffs further stated that they have never licensed or assigned the use of trademark to the Defendant person in any manner.

Plaintiffs provided relevant materials on the defendants and their employees to elicit their response albeit unsuccessfully. Then the Ex-Parte motion was passed by them.

The court observed that the defendant's mark is causing confusion among various individuals, job seekers, distributors and /or corporations who viewed their social media pages by causing slight modification in their trademark.

Considering the above arguments and the alleged breach, court permanently restrains the defendants from infringing the Trademark and Copyright of the Plaintiffs i.e. of the AMUL, AMUL-The Taste Of India, that the defendants shall transfer to the plaintiffs within 30 days from the date of judgment, ownership rights and all the access to the social media pages to the plaintiffs contrary to section 27 of the Copyright Act and trademark rights of the plaintiff, and contrary to section 19 and 20(1)(a) of the Trademarks Act.

Contact BIAT Legal LLP for Expert services.