Author: Priyanka Nimje
INTRODUCTION
The case study of Coca-Cola v/s Bisleri was an infringement case in the history of intellectual property in India. Both companies Coca-Cola and Bisleri are branded companies where Coca-Cola is famous for selling SOFT DRINKS and Bisleri is famous for selling bottled WATER.
V/S
THE CASE: The company Coca-Cola sued Bisleri to stop selling their product MAAZA.
Companies Background:
Earlier in 1993, Bisleri was known as Aqua Minerals Private LTD. It sold its intellectual property to 5 other companies Thums Up, Limca, Gold Spot, Citra, and MAAZA.
etc. these all are soft drinks.
This case is all about MAAZA.
In 2008 Bisleri had registered trademark for MAAZA in Turkey and started selling it there, but plaintiff had registered trademark in India. After noticing by Coca-Cola, plaintiff sent legal notice to the defendant to back out or to renouncing the licensing for MAAZA from using their trademark directly or indirectly. Because Coca-Cola was already parent company for MAAZA drink and they were selling MAAZA legally in India.
Bisleri was denied backing off to using Trademark for MAAZA in Turkey. However, Coca-Cola found that Bisleri allows to third party company like Verma International and M/s. Indian Canning Industries and selling their products by Aqua Minerals Private LTD which is now known as Bisleri.
Arguments:
The argument was filed by Coca-Cola that they launched MAAZA in 1976 and if any production or manufactured with this MAAZA trademark to sell in India or to export to any other countries it would be considered as infringement to their trademark.
As Bisleri said they sell the product MAAZA only in Turkey. So, there would not be an infringement for the defendant’s trademark. However, there was further an issue due to plaintiff was registered the trademark in India hence plaintiff cannot sell the product with same trademark. And plaintiff has legal authority to sell their product in India and authority to file case who is using their trademark.
Plaintiff was registered with same trademark in Turkey that’s why defendant sued back on plaintiff because defendant was already registered with same trademark. Even plaintiff blames defendant for having manufacturing places in India.
Court’s Decision:
Delhi high court has jurisdiction in this matter. The product was manufactured and sold in Turkey. Bislery had already registered and Coca-Cola’s blame was not true therefore court decided to the product MAAZA can be sold in any country or production or manufacture by Bislery. And in India only production or manufacture by Coca-Cola. This was all worn out due to defendant had large loss on their selling the products.
Conclusion:
Trademark is a unique symbol or words that used to signify a business or its products. Once registered, a trademark cannot be used by any other organization, as long as it remains in use and the owner maintains proper control and protection over it. The case is an explanation of the definition of Trademark If a trademark is licensed by a company, no other establishment may use it without permission, as doing so may be considered an infringement.
The case made it clear that a trademark of any brand or company can be registered in any country, and if anyone tries to use the same trademark, whether it is in the same country or in another country. If anyone do that it would be considered as infringement.
The case provides valuable insights into the legal implications of trademark assignments, contractual obligations, and brand enforcement strategies. It demonstrates how businesses can safeguard valuable trademarks, prevent unauthorized use, and strengthen their intellectual property portfolio through effective legal planning and enforcement.
SOURCES:
- https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/ODQ2NA==/THE-COCA-COLA-COMPANY-VS-BISLERI-INTERNATIONAL-PVTLTD
- https://desikaanoon.in/case-analysis-on-the-coca-cola-company-vs-bisleri-international-pvt-ltd-2009-164-dlt-59/
Products owned by companies:
| Products owned by Bisleri | Products owned by Coca-Cola |
Image Source: Bisleri Interntional
Image Source: Bisleri International |
Image Source: Coca-Cola Company
Image Source: Coca-Cola Company |
THANK YOU
Case Study :The Cipla Limited v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. case is a significant example of how intellectual property rights influence competition and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. The dispute highlights the importance of patent protection, regulatory compliance, and effective enforcement of intellectual property rights in safeguarding pharmaceutical innovations.
Who We Are
At PATHtoIP, we believe every innovative idea deserves the right protection and the opportunity to create a lasting impact. We are a leading Intellectual Property (IP) consulting firm dedicated to helping innovators, startups, SMEs, researchers, academic institutions, and enterprises transform ideas into valuable intellectual assets.
Our expertise spans patents, trademarks, copyrights, industrial designs, patent analytics, freedom-to-operate (FTO) studies, white space analysis, technology landscaping, and comprehensive IP portfolio management. By combining technical knowledge with legal and business insights, we deliver practical IP strategies that support innovation, commercialization, and sustainable business growth.
Our mission is to empower creators and businesses with the confidence to innovate, compete, and grow in an increasingly knowledge-driven economy. Whether you’re launching your first invention or managing an established IP portfolio, PATHtoIP is committed to helping you secure, protect, and maximize the value of your intellectual property.
Stay connected with PATHtoIP for the latest insights on patents, trademarks, copyrights, innovation, and IP strategy. Follow us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, X , Pinterest, YouTube, and Quora for expert guidance, industry updates, case studies, and practical tips to protect your innovations.
