Gives False Impression That It Is Official Mr. Bean Theme Park: Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Trampoline Park From Using Trademark

The Bombay High Court recently granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a Trampoline Park in Lonavla from using the trademark, artwork, device or character of Mr. Bean from the popular comedy series which was first broadcasted in January 1990.The court compared the registered Mr. Bean Trademark with the allegedly infringing trademark of the trampoline park and concluded –“On the comparison, indicated above, I must note that this is a perfect case of false endorsement where the impression given to the consumers is that the trampoline park of the Defendant is authorized or is an official theme park of the Plaintiff, which is not the case. Further, the Defendant continue to use the Impugned Marks despite being put to notice and its dishonest intention is writ at large…if the Defendant is not restrained by a temporary injunction, it will continue with its nefarious activities resulting in uncalculated losses, which may not be capable of being compensated in terms of money.” The court restrained it from conducting any commercial activity using any mark containing the words 'Mr. Bean' / 'Mr. Been' and/or any other trademark, artwork, and character deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's well-known registered said Trademark.The court was dealing with an interim application in a commercial intellectual property suit filed by Tiger Aspect Kids & Family Ltd. against Mr. Bean Trampoline Park in Lonavla, operated by one Rupesh Dighe. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunction and restraining orders against the defendant for alleged passing off goodwill and infringement of trademark, and copyright.The plaintiff is a UK company under the Banijay Group, which is headquartered in Paris, France. The Banijay Groups has a repertoire of media and entertainment productions, including titles such as "Survivor," "Big Brother," and "Mr. Bean".By virtue of trademark registrations, agreements under various jurisdictions including India, and being the producer of the show, movies and animated series, the plaintiff claims ownership of the copyright and merchandising rights over the original artistic work, trademark, device, and character of Mr. Bean. It has submitted that it has been broadcasting and using the said Works and the merchandise featuring the trademark and Mr. Bean artwork/device/character on various channels and OTT/online platforms such as Amazon, YouTube, etc., which can be openly accessed in India.The plaintiff accused the defendant of exploiting its trademarks, artwork, and character, for commercial gain.In December 2023, the plaintiff opposed the defendant's trademark application filed in November 2022. Despite the defendant's website becoming non-functional after receiving cease and desist notices, the plaintiff claimed it discovered posters near Lonavala advertising the park as "Mr. Been Trampoline Park" instead of "Mr. Bean."According to the plaintiff, its representative upon visiting the park noted the park's theme centered around Mr. Bean, implying an association with the plaintiff's brand. Additionally, the defendant operated a café called "Bean's Cafe" and a restaurant offering "Mr. Bean's Special Pavbhaji & Pulav," along with selling merchandise bearing the impugned marks.After filing the present suit, the plaintiff claimed to have found that the defendant had launched another website deceptively similar to its mark, changing the park's name from "Mr. Bean Trampoline Park" to "Mr. Been Trampoline Park" after receiving cease and desist notices.The plaintiff argued that the defendant's use of the impugned marks infringed upon its rights, citing visual and conceptual similarities with its trademarks and artistic works. Claiming a wide reputation and goodwill in their trademarks, artwork, and character, the plaintiff contended that consumer confusion was inevitable due to the resemblance between the defendant's marks and its own well-known trademarks.Finding a strong prima facie case, the court granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant restraining them from infringing the plaintiff's trademarks and copyrights. The court listed the application for further consideration on June 14, 2024.Advocates Hiren Kamod, Rahul Dhote, Anushree Rauta, Shwetank Tripathi, Prem Khullar, Vidit Desai and Umang Sheth represented the Plaintiffs.Case Title - Tiger Aspect Kids & Family Limited v. Mr. Bean Trampoline Park / Mr. Been Trampoline ParkClick Here To Read/Download Order

Gives False Impression That It Is Official Mr. Bean Theme Park: Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Trampoline Park From Using Trademark

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags