JOIN USCoke Studio vs Cook Studio: Delhi HC refers trademark suit to Mediation Centre
Coke Studio, the popular music platform known for its cross borders songs has landed on an unmusical note for its recent note to a food blogger, who has drawn the company to court. The food blogger who owns ‘Cook Studio’ has taken The Coca Cola Company to Delhi High Court for sending him notices asking him to abstain from using the name.
The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Pratibha M Singh has ordered the owner of ‘Cook Studio’, Nikhil Chawla and The Coca Cola Company, which owns ‘Coke Studio’ trademark, to appear before the Mediation Centre to amicably resolve the trademark-related dispute.
“It appears to this court that an attempt ought to be made to amicably resolve this dispute through mediation in the first place. Accordingly, both parties are referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on May 31, 2022 at 4 pm. Mr. Rajeev Virmani, ld. Senior Counsel is appointed to act as the Mediator in this matter,” the court ordered as reported by Live Law.
The proprietor of a firm called The Chawla Group, Chawla runs the ‘Cook Studio’ platform, which produces content related to cooking, and has filed a suit seeking declaration of non-infringement of the registered Coke Studio trademark.
He moved the court under Section 142 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, which states that a person can approach the court for declaration of non-infringement in case they receive a notice alleging infringement. Chawla had received notices from Coke Studio owners in connection with the name.
The Coca-Cola Company counsel in his argument said that the suit would not be maintainable as the use of the mark ‘Cook Studio’ by Chawla would constitute an infringement of its registered trademark ‘Coke Studio’. However, Chawla’s counsel argued that there is complete disparity in the logos and their colour combination. The court was also told that words ‘cook’ and ‘studio’ are generic.
The court has ordered the parties to complete arguments in the case and listed it for further consideration on September 12. “If the matter is resolved, parties may move an application,” the court ordered.