The Bombay High Court’s interim order favoring Reliance Retail Ltd. was a significant step in protecting the “Campa” brand’s trademark, which has been part of Reliance’s portfolio since 2022. The dispute arose after the defendant, a beverage company, launched products under the “Jhampa” brand, which Reliance alleged bore an intentional resemblance to “Campa” in both name and visual identity.
Justice RI Chagla’s order emphasized the deceptive similarity between “Jhampa” and “Campa,” stating that the “Jhampa” mark mimicked the “Campa” trademark not only in appearance and pronunciation but also in overall presentation, raising a high probability of consumer confusion. This alignment extends to packaging details, where “Jhampa” employed similar color schemes, logos, and designs that Reliance contended were direct imitations of its registered artistic works associated with the “Campa” brand.
Reliance’s legal team argued that adopting “Jhampa” was a strategic attempt to leverage the “Campa” brand’s market reputation and goodwill. Reliance claimed that such practices threatened to erode its brand’s value and mislead consumers. Despite the defendant’s defense that “Jhampa” was a village name and not aimed at replicating “Campa,” the court found this justification inadequate. The court noted that the defendant had filed for a “Jhampa” trademark only after receiving Reliance’s cease-and-desist notice, casting doubt on the defendant’s intent.
In the interim injunction, Justice Chagla prohibited the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, or advertising products under “Jhampa” or any mark resembling “Campa.” This prohibition covers all forms of distribution, advertising, and digital or physical display, including on social media, thus securing comprehensive protection for Reliance’s brand assets until the next hearing.
The defendant was ordered to submit an affidavit in response by November 18, 2024, with the next hearing scheduled for November 27, 2024. Reliance was represented by Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani and his team from Saikrishna & Associates, while Advocate Pritish Chatterjee represented the defendant.
