Coke or Cook Studio? Court refers trademark infringement case for mediation

Due to visibility, success and exposure to local artists, “Coke studio” is a platform that invites various music artists of different genres to come to collaborate and create magical music. The defendants, in this case, were taken to court by “Cook studio”, an online platform run by proprietor Nikhil Chawla and aims towards blogging and producing video films, training, etc all related to cooking.

The suit was first brought up before the bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh who issued a notice that the parties are to attempt to resolve their dispute through the process of mediation, an alternative method of dispute resolution. In this method, disputes can be resolved amicably without going to court and with a structured, voluntary and interactive negotiation, a neutral third party with specialised communication and negotiation techniques helps these parties to fulfil their objectives.

Nikhil Chawla brought this action against Coke studio under Section 142 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 seeking a declaration of non-infringement. Through the said section, a party aggrieved can get an injunction against the other party that is issuing groundless threats and prevent the continuance of these threats.

According to Nikhil Chawla, various notices were sent to them by Coke Studio in which they had claimed infringement of the mark by the plaintiff’s Cook studio for their recent blog.

On one hand, the defendant’s counsel stated that this section would not be justifiable as the use of the Mark ‘cook studio’ would cause an infringement of Coke studio’s registered Trademark. Whereas, on the other hand, the opposing counsel stated that there was much distinction between the logos and were on completely different levels with the inconsistent colour combination. He also noted that the words – ‘COOK’ and ‘STUDIO’ are general terminology and can be used by a group collectively.

Justice Pratibha M Singh, hence, referred the case to mediation for a harmonious and polite way of resolving their dispute and Mr. Rajiv Varma was appointed as a mediator.

The court ordered, “It appears to this court that an attempt ought to be made to amicably resolve this dispute through mediation in the first place. Accordingly, both parties are referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on May 31, 2022, at 4 pm. Mr Rajeev Virmani, ld. Senior Counsel is appointed to act as the Mediator in this matter”.

The court further ordered them to complete their arguments for the case and was listed for further consideration on 12 September stating that “if the matter is resolved, parties may move an application”.

The blog has been written by Deeksha Aggarwal during her internship with MikeLegal.

To keep track of infringements to your client’s TM portfolio and marks, automate weekly journal analysis with MikeTM Watch.

REFERENCES