Starbucks Corp. v. Sardarbuksh Coffee Co.

This presentation delves into the intricate legal battle between Starbucks Corporation, a titan in the global coffee industry, and Sardarbuksh Coffee Co., a burgeoning Indian coffee shop chain. The central conflict hinges on allegations of trademark infringement and passing off. Starbucks vehemently asserted that Sardarbuksh's brand elements, encompassing both the name and logo, bore a deceptive resemblance to their own meticulously registered trademarks. This purported similarity, Starbucks contended, had the potential to mislead consumers into believing an affiliation between the two companies, thereby jeopardising Starbucks' established brand identity.

This case serves as a compelling illustration of the paramount importance of safeguarding brand identity through the robust framework of trademark laws. It underscores the critical necessity of meticulously considering consumer perception when crafting brand elements, emphasising the need to remain well within the legal boundaries that govern brand design. The ultimate resolution of the case reinforces the significance of vigorously enforcing trademark rights. By doing so, companies can not only preserve the integrity of their brands but also prevent the erosion of consumer trust engendered by confusion in the marketplace.

1. Starbucks Coffee v. Sardarbuksh Coffee Aniruddha Bamal © All Rights Reserved

2. Parties Involved Plaintiff : Starbucks Corporation - A global coffeehouse chain known for its signature beverages and branding. Defendant : Sardarbuksh Coffee Co. and Ors . - An Indian coffee shop chain established in 2015, with a name and logo resembling Starbucks. Citation: Starbucks Corporation v. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. & Ors ., on August 1, 2018 , CS (COMM) 1007/2018 In the Presence of:- Justice Manmohan of the Delhi High Court. © All Rights Reserved

3. Facts of the Case Starbucks is a globally-known coffee company, famous for providing coffee and coffee-related products across the world. It registered its logo and name under the word mark “STARBUCKS” in India in 2001 in accordance with the Trademark Act of 1999, In 2015, the defendants, Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co., commenced their business operations in India under the name " Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co." The defendants' business model was in the same industry as Starbucks, involving the sale of coffee and related products. © All Rights Reserved

4. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. adopted a logo that featured the face of a turban commander surrounded by a circular black band with wavy lines on the sides. This logo was prominently displayed in their branding and marketing materials. In response to Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co.'s use of the word “SARDARBUKSH” and a logo that bore similarities to Starbucks' registered trademark, Starbucks issued a demand letter to the defendants in 2017. © All Rights Reserved

5. Logo of Starbucks Corp. Logo of Sardarbuksh Coffee Co. © All Rights Reserved

6. In a response to Starbucks' demand, Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. made only minor alterations to their logo, primarily changing the colour scheme to black and yellow. Despite this alteration, the overall design and elements of the logo remained substantially similar to Starbucks' trademark. © All Rights Reserved

7. Issues Raised: © All Rights Reserved

8. Judgement Initial Order (August 2018): The Delhi High Court, under Justice Manmohan , issued an interim order . Sardarbuksh is required to use " Sardarji -Bakhsh Coffee & Co." for new outlets and existing Sardarbuksh outlets are allowed temporary use of their current name. Final Settlement (September 27, 2018): Sardarbuksh agreed to rename all outlets to " Sardarji -Bakhsh Coffee & Co.” and retained the right to sue for trademark infringement on the term "Bakhsh" in the future. © All Rights Reserved

9. Provisions referred in the Case Section 2(1)(h) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 : “deceptively similar”.—A mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark if it so nearly resembles that other mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion;” Section 11(1) of the Trademark Act, 1999 This section deals with grounds for refusing trademark registration. In this case, it would be relevant to Section 11(1) which states that registration can be refused if a trademark is identical or deceptively like an earlier registered trademark for similar goods or services. © All Rights Reserved

10. National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs. James Chadwick and Bros Citation: AIR 1953 SC 357 In this case, it was held that deceptive similarity could only be determined by stepping into the customer’s shoes under the presumption that he is a man with ordinary intelligence. If the customer feels confused while differentiating between the two brands, they can be deemed deceptively similar. © All Rights Reserved

11. Conclusion Protecting Brand Identity: Explore legal aspects of trademarks to see how companies can secure their brands. Consumer and Similar Brands: Investigate how consumers tell similar brands apart and how it affects their choices. Legal Limits of Similarity: Analyze court cases on trademark infringement to understand legal boundaries for brand design. Enforcing Trademark Rights: Study how trademark laws are enforced and how disputes are resolved to improve legal protection. © All Rights Reserved

12. © All Rights Reserved