{"id":90,"date":"2026-10-06T13:38:23","date_gmt":"2026-10-06T13:38:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/litlegal.in\/blog\/?p=90"},"modified":"2026-10-06T13:38:23","modified_gmt":"2026-10-06T13:38:23","slug":"summary-diageo-brands-v-great-galleon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/litlegal.in\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/10\/06\/summary-diageo-brands-v-great-galleon\/","title":{"rendered":"Summary: Diageo Brands v. Great Galleon"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Judgment Summary<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Name<\/strong>– Diageo Brands B.V. & Anr. vs Great Galleon Ventures Limited<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citation<\/strong>– 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2350<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coram-<\/strong> Justice Sanjeev Narula<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Date <\/strong>– 2nd<\/sup> August 2022<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. BRIEF BACKGROUND<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    This case pertains to dispute between Diageo Brands B.V. and United Spirits Ltd. (\u201cthe Plaintiff\u201d<\/strong>), and Great Galleon Ventures Limited (\u201cthe Defendant<\/strong>\u201d), over the alleged infringement of Diageo’s Registered Design for their \u201cHipster\u201d bottle. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant\u2019s products imitate their bottle design and trade dress, infringing their intellectual property rights. Consequently, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction and related reliefs to prevent the Defendant from manufacturing and selling these allegedly infringing bottles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. FACTS OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. Diageo Brands B.V. (\u201cPlaintiff No. 1<\/em>) is a global entity holding the intellectual property rights for various products, including the innovative \u201cHipster\u201d bottle design. United Spirits Ltd. (Plaintiff No. 2<\/em>), a subsidiary of Diageo, distributes these products in India. Great Galleon Ventures Limited (the Defendant<\/em>) manufactures and sells alcoholic beverages under the \u2018GOA\u2019 brand, including \u2018GOA Gold Whisky\u2019 and \u2018GOA Silver Whisky.\u2019<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. The \u201cHipster\u201d bottle is a 180 ml container designed to resemble a smartphone, which is intended to make it convenient for carrying in a pocket and appealing to a modern consumer base. This design is covered under Design Registration No. 292602 granted under the Designs Act, 2000. It has been used for premium Scotch whisky brands like \u2018Black Dog,\u2019 \u2018Vat 69,\u2019 and \u2018Black & White\u2019 in the Indian market.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    4. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant\u2019s 180 ml bottles for these products closely mimic the \u201cHipster\u201d design, infringing on their Registered Design and creating confusion among consumers. Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant\u2019s bottles are a \u201cslavish and fraudulent imitation\u201d of their Registered Design and trade dress, leading to unfair competition and passing off.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    5. On February 23, 2021, the court granted an ex-parte interim injunction against the Defendant, restraining them from manufacturing, selling, or distributing the allegedly infringing bottles.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    6. The present Petition was filed by the Plaintiffs seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendant along with damages for the alleged infringement and passing off.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
        \n
      1. ISSUES (Para 22)<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        The issues involved in the present dispute are as under:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        1. Whether the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the Design.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        2. Whether the Plaintiffs\u2019 Registered Design is legally protected<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        3. Whether the Defendant\u2019s bottles constitute an obvious or fraudulent imitation of the Plaintiffs\u2019 Registered Design.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        4. Whether the Defendant has valid grounds under Section 19 of the Designs Act to challenge the Plaintiffs\u2019 Registered Design.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        5. Whether the Defendant’s use of a similar design amounts to passing off and unfair competition.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
            \n
          1. ANALYSIS AND DECISION<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

            After hearing and analysing the submissions and documents placed on record, by the respective parties, the analysis of the Hon\u2019ble Court is provided as under:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Issue 1<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

              \n
            1. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff\u2019s design must fall into the public domain in order to encourage design innovation, which includes the right to copy freely . It was also contended that the design was actually created by a company called \u2018Love Creative\u2019 (Para 24<\/em><\/strong>).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            2. However, the Hon\u2019ble Court observed that Love Creative did not claim any ownership over the design. Furthermore, that the first-person would remain the proprietor of the design, and at no point will the person who executed the work retain any rights\/title for the work. Hence, the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the registered design (Para 27<\/em><\/strong>). The relevant paragraph from the judgment is reproduced below:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

              \u201cNo document has been shown where Love Creative has laid a claim of ownership\/proprietary rights in the design. Further, it is evident from Section 2(1)(j) of the Designs Act,18\u2026\u2026\u2026 that even when work is executed for one person by another, the first-person would remain the proprietor of the design, and at no point will the person who executed the work retain any rights\/ title for the work<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n