{"id":7152,"date":"2025-08-11T10:50:21","date_gmt":"2025-08-11T10:50:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=7152"},"modified":"2025-08-11T11:00:51","modified_gmt":"2025-08-11T11:00:51","slug":"trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off-involving-numerals-haywards-5000-vs-cox-5001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off-involving-numerals-haywards-5000-vs-cox-5001\/","title":{"rendered":"Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off Involving Numerals: Haywards 5000 Vs Cox 5001"},"content":{"rendered":"<article lang=\"en\">\n<header>\n<h1><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Sabmiller_India_Ltd_v_Jagpin_Breweries_Ltd\"><\/span>Sabmiller India Ltd. v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h1>\n<p><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 4842 \u00a0 | \u00a0 <strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 06.02.2014 \u00a0 | \u00a0 <strong>Case No.:<\/strong> Notice of Motion No. 92 of 2012 in Suit No. 56 of 2012 \u00a0 | \u00a0 <strong>Court:<\/strong> High Court of Bombay \u00a0 | \u00a0 <strong>Judge:<\/strong> Kathawalla S.J., J.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-1'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off-involving-numerals-haywards-5000-vs-cox-5001\/#Sabmiller_India_Ltd_v_Jagpin_Breweries_Ltd\" >Sabmiller India Ltd. v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd.<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-2' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off-involving-numerals-haywards-5000-vs-cox-5001\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off-involving-numerals-haywards-5000-vs-cox-5001\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off-involving-numerals-haywards-5000-vs-cox-5001\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off-involving-numerals-haywards-5000-vs-cox-5001\/#Core_Dispute\" >Core Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off-involving-numerals-haywards-5000-vs-cox-5001\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off-involving-numerals-haywards-5000-vs-cox-5001\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off-involving-numerals-haywards-5000-vs-cox-5001\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off-involving-numerals-haywards-5000-vs-cox-5001\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off-involving-numerals-haywards-5000-vs-cox-5001\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<\/header>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case involves a trademark infringement and passing off dispute in the beer industry, where the plaintiff sought to protect its well-established brand <em>&#8220;HAYWARDS 5000&#8221;<\/em> against the defendant&#8217;s use of <em>&#8220;COX 5001.&#8221;<\/em> The Bombay High Court examined the deceptive similarity between the marks, focusing on the numeral <em>&#8220;5000&#8221;<\/em> as an essential feature, and addressed issues like disclaimers, prior user, and suppression of facts. Decided in 2014, the judgment reinforces principles of trademark law, particularly regarding the protectability of numerals in composite marks and the limited role of disclaimers. It highlights the court&#8217;s approach to granting interim injunctions in cases of registered trademarks, emphasizing prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The plaintiff, Sabmiller India Ltd., is the proprietor of the trademarks <strong>&#8220;HAYWARDS 5000&#8221;<\/strong> (registered under No. 436744 in Class 32 since 1983) and <strong>&#8220;FIVE THOUSAND&#8221;<\/strong> (registered under No. 1521743 in Class 32), both for beer.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff and its predecessors have continuously used <em>HAYWARDS 5000<\/em> prominently on labels, achieving significant sales and promotional expenses, thereby establishing goodwill. The defendant, Jagpin Breweries Ltd., began using <em>COX 5001<\/em> on beer labels, which the plaintiff discovered in September 2011.<\/p>\n<p>Prior litigation between the parties included a 2006 suit where the court restrained the defendant from using <em>COX 5000<\/em>, and a 2011 <a href=\"\/lawyers\/chennai.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Madras High Court<\/a> order against the defendant for infringing the plaintiff&#8217;s bottle design. The defendant challenged the plaintiff&#8217;s registration before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board but lost, and no appeal was filed. The plaintiff alleged that <em>COX 5001<\/em> was deceptively similar, misleading consumers and trading on its reputation.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The plaintiff filed Suit No. 56 of 2012 in the Bombay High Court for infringement and passing off, along with Notice of Motion No. 92 of 2012 seeking interim injunctions. On January 13, 2012, the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from using <em>COX 5001<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>The defendant sought vacation, but the court confirmed the injunction on February 7, 2012. The defendant&#8217;s appeal (No. 189 of 2012) was dismissed on August 28, 2012. In February 2013, the court granted leave to combine passing off with infringement claims. The notice of motion was heard, with arguments on deceptive similarity, disclaimers, suppression, and delay, leading to the final order on February 6, 2014.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The primary issue was whether the defendant&#8217;s <em>COX 5001<\/em> infringed the plaintiff&#8217;s registered trademarks <em>HAYWARDS 5000<\/em> and <em>FIVE THOUSAND<\/em> and amounted to passing off, given the prominence of the numeral <em>5000<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff argued deceptive similarity in visual, phonetic, and structural aspects, claiming exclusive rights without disclaimer on <em>5000<\/em>. The defendant contended that <em>5000<\/em> was descriptive, disclaimed, common to trade, and that the plaintiff suppressed facts, delayed action, and abandoned the mark. Additional disputes included jurisdiction (later withdrawn), balance of convenience, and whether prior litigation barred the suit.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The plaintiff relied on a line of authorities to support holistic comparison and the protectability of the numeral <em>5000<\/em>:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>De Cordova v. Vick Chemical Co. (1951) 68 RPC 103 \u2014 rival marks must be compared as a whole, focusing on essential features like <em>5000<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li>Reckitt &amp; Colman of India Ltd. v. Wockhardt Limited (unreported, Bom HC, Appeal No. 1180 of 1981, decided July 8, 1992) \u2014 holistic comparison to establish deceptive similarity.<\/li>\n<li>Shaw Wallace &amp; Co. Ltd. v. Mohan Rocky Spring Water Breweries Ltd. (2006) 3 Bom CR 252 \u2014 supports that <em>5000<\/em> is distinctive and not disclaimed.<\/li>\n<li>Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhat Shah (2002) 3 SCC 65 \u2014 outlines passing off elements: reputation, misrepresentation, and damage.<\/li>\n<li>Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 6 SCC 145 \u2014 no need to prove mala fide intent; likelihood of confusion suffices.<\/li>\n<li>Poddar Tyres Ltd. v. Bedrock Sales Corporation Ltd. (1993) PTC 253 \u2014 in registered <a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalservicesindia.com\/article\/2160\/Trademark-infringement-and-passing-off-Indian-pharmaceutical-industry.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">trademark cases<\/a>, balance of convenience plays a minimal role.<\/li>\n<li>SKOL Breweries Ltd. v. Som Distilleries &amp; Breweries Ltd. (2012) 49 PTC 231 (Bom) &amp; SKOL Breweries Ltd. v. Fortune Alcobrew Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 50 PTC 413 (Bom) \u2014 substantial use of a registered mark, even with variations, constitutes deemed use; disclaimers do not cover essential numerals unless specified.<\/li>\n<li>Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd. (1955) 2 SCR 252 \u2014 discusses the purpose of disclaimers, distinguished here for non-descriptive numerals.<\/li>\n<li>Shaw Wallace authorities (various) and Shaw Wallace &amp; Co. Ltd. v. Superior Industries Ltd. (2003) 27 PTC 63 (Del) \u2014 numerals like <em>5000<\/em> can acquire distinctiveness through use.<\/li>\n<li>Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. AIR 1960 SC 142 \u2014 mere registration does not prove use; defendant&#8217;s reliance on other numeral marks was dismissed.<\/li>\n<li>S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 \u2014 cited by defendant on suppression of facts; court assessed materiality.<\/li>\n<li>Shelke Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal (2010) 3 All MR 667 \u2014 defendant&#8217;s claim that <em>5000<\/em> is common to trade was distinguished on facts of dissimilarity.<\/li>\n<li>S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2004) 7 SCC 166 \u2014 defines material suppression affecting merits.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The judge compared the marks holistically, finding <em>5001<\/em> deceptively similar to <em>5000<\/em> visually and phonetically, and likely to cause confusion in beer sales.<\/p>\n<p>The disclaimer argument was rejected: the judge held disclaimers apply only to descriptive matter, not to the distinctive numeral <em>5000<\/em>, noting that the Registrar specifies numeral disclaimers explicitly. Relying on prior rulings, the court affirmed <em>5000<\/em> as an essential and protectable element.<\/p>\n<p>On passing off, the judge found the plaintiff&#8217;s extensive use established reputation, with the defendant&#8217;s mark misrepresenting origin and damaging goodwill. Suppression claims were dismissed as irrelevant to the suit concerning registered marks. Delay defenses were rejected due to dishonest adoption, and jurisdiction was upheld under the Trade Marks Act. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, given long use since 1983 versus the defendant&#8217;s unsubstantiated claims, with irreparable harm from continued infringement.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The court made the notice of motion absolute, granting temporary injunctions restraining the defendant from using <em>COX 5001<\/em> or any mark with <em>5001<\/em> deceptively similar to <em>HAYWARDS 5000<\/em>, for infringement and passing off in beer sales.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This judgment settles that numerals in composite trademarks can be distinctive and protectable if not explicitly disclaimed, with disclaimers limited to descriptive matter unless specified. It reinforces holistic mark comparison, emphasizing essential features, and deems substantial use of registered marks as valid despite minor variations. In passing off, likelihood of confusion suffices without proving intent, and delay or acquiescence defenses fail against dishonest adoption. Suppression must involve material facts affecting merits, and mere registration of similar marks does not prove use or commonality without evidence.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<footer>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> Sabmiller India Ltd. Vs Jagpin Breweries Ltd.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 06.02.2014<\/li>\n<li><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> Notice of Motion No. 92 of 2012 in Suit No. 56 of 2012<\/li>\n<li><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 4842<\/li>\n<li><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> <a href=\"\/lawyers\/bombay.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">High Court of Bombay<\/a><\/li>\n<li><strong>Name of Judge:<\/strong> Kathawalla S.J., J.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/footer>\n<\/article>\n<p><b>Disclaimer:\u00a0<\/b>The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and Trademark Attorney<br \/>\nEmail: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sabmiller India Ltd. v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd. Neutral Citation: 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 4842 \u00a0 | \u00a0 Date of Order: 06.02.2014 \u00a0 | \u00a0 Case No.: Notice of Motion No. 92 of 2012 in Suit No. 56 of 2012 \u00a0 | \u00a0 Court: High Court of Bombay \u00a0 | \u00a0 Judge: Kathawalla S.J., J. Introduction<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-7152","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7152","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7152"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7152\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}