Scribd
Upload
36 views4 pages

Case Study

Uploaded by

Palak Thakur
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
36 views4 pages

Case Study

Uploaded by

Palak Thakur
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

CASE STUDY:

COCA-COLA VS BISLERI
Coca-cola and Bisleri International were involved in a legal battle over the
trademark "Mazza". The case was known as the “Mazza war".
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
• Bisleri is an Indian company known for its bottled water.
• Coca-Cola is the largest soft drink brand operating in 200 countries.

• On September 18, 1993 the Bisleri sold the trade marks, formulation rights know how, intellectual property rights
and goodwill etc. of some of their including Mazza to Coca-Cola.

• When Bisleri filed for the trademark in Turkey, they relied on the notion that Agreement signed for the use of
Mazza was only in India and not for export purposes by Coca-Cola.
• In 2008, Bisleri registered the Mazza trademark in Turkey and began selling it there.
• Coca-Cola had registered the trademark in India.
• Coca-Cola sent a legal notice to Bisleri to back out or renounce the licensing for Mazza.
THE CONCLUSION OF THIS CASE:
• Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd has registered the trademark of Mazza all over the world whereas Coca-Cola company
owned the trademark of Mazza only in India and suddenly if it tries to take all the rights and trademark throughout
the world then it would be unjustified on their part to claim an injunction on the manufacture for exports.

• The Delhi high court restricted the sale of Mazza product by Bisleri in India and an interim order of injunction was
passed against the Bisleri preventing them to use the trademark each purchasable in India and export merchandise.

• It was also held that the manufacture of goods was meant to be for the sale in other countries and Bisleri still had the
right to sell products in other countries, the court should have passed an order of injunction only for its sale in India
and not for the exports.
THANK YOU

You might also like