White Lace v. Wild Lake

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

Plaintiff has ‘WHITE LACE’ gin, ‘WHITE LACE’ vodka et cetera. It is submitted, on account of long, continuous and extensive use of the trade mark ‘WHITE LACE’ in relation to alcoholic beverages, Plaintiff has attained immense goodwill and reputation. It is submitted, Defendant has been selling identical products under the impugned mark: ‘WILD LAKE’.  

Wild 1

Defendant has suggested a new proposed label and mark: ‘WILD BERIES ORANGE VODKA’. Accordingly, in respect of existing stock lying with Defendant, the new label and mark shall be used. Defendant is further permitted to proceed with manufacture and sale.  

Wild 2

Parties wish to explore an amicable resolution and discuss settlement terms. List before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

– Hon’ble Justice Pratibha M. Singh of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, M/s. Globus Spirits Ltd. v. Wild Berries Bottling Pvt. Ltd., [CS(COMM) 435/2022] decided on 08.08.2022.

_____

First Party shall neither directly nor indirectly interfere/object or disturb sale of Second Party’s goods, under its mark ‘WILD LAKE’ and ‘WILD LACE’, lying with Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited.

Et cetera.

– Hon’ble Justice C. Hari Shankar of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, M/s. Globus Spirits Ltd. v. Wild Berries Bottling Pvt. Ltd., [CS(COMM) 435/2022] decided on 29.03.2023.

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.