WALMART APOLLO LLC v. ABDUL MAJID GAGROO

1. The plaintiff is a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of Walmart Inc., an American Corporation founded in 1962. The name “WAL- MART” is stated to have been coined as a portamenteau of the first half of the surname of the founder of the company Mr. Sam Walton and “MART” as an abbreviation for “market”.

2. WALMART Inc. is stated to have assigned the Walmart mark to the plaintiff in 2018. The plaintiff has the following registrations of Walmart, as a word mark, in Classes 16, 35 and 42:

1. WAL-MART 928856 16 31/05/2000 31/05/20 Goods: stationery, paper and plastic bags, printed paper signs, printed forms, advertising supplements to newspapers for general circulation, privately circulated newspapers, packaging, price tags, included in class 16

2. WALMART 1818308 35 14/05/2009 14/05/20 Services: primarily retail and wholesale services; and generally, advertising; business management; business administration; office functions

3. WAL- MART 1254210 42 09/12/2003 09/12/20 Services: the bringing together for the benefit of others, of a variety of goods, enabling, customers to conveniently view and purchase those goods in a supermarket, a retail pharmacy, a general merchandise internet web site, and in a retail department store

3. The plaint expostulates at considerable length regarding the worldwide reputation enjoyed by the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff operates more than 10500 stores under 46 banners in 24 countries under the corporate name and trading style Wal- Mart/Walmart. It is stated that the plaintiff employs about 2.[3] million associates worldwide. The plaintiff has consistently figured near the top of the Fortune 500 list of companies, which enlists the largest US corporations and, consistently from 2013 to 2021, is at the top of the list. The Forbes magazine is also stated to have rated the plaintiff as one of the worlds top companies. The plaintiff claims to have registrations of the Walmart/Wal-Mart in at least 90 jurisdictions including India and, among others, Andorra, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benelux, Bermuda, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, Cayman Islands, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Jersey, Malaysia, O.A.P.I., Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America and Virgin Islands (British).

4. The WALMART brand is also rated as one of the leading global brands. Consequent to approval of foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail in India, the plaintiff claims to have become a 51% stakeholder in M/s Bharti Walmart Pvt. Ltd. in 2012, whereupon the name of the company was changed to Walmart India Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff also claims to have acquired a majority stake in the Flipkart group of companies in 2018, whereafter, in July 2020, the Flipkart group acquired Walmart India Pvt. Ltd. On the e-commerce website of the Flipkart group www.flipkart.com, the plaintiff’s products are sold under various trade names, in each case identifying the brand as “Walmart”. Indian operations of the plaintiff are stated to have garnered revenue to the extent of ₹ 247,928,270,173 during the period 2007 to 2018.

5. As such, it is submitted that there is substantial spill over of the plaintiff’s global reputation into India.

6. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is using the marks WAL MART/ WALMART/THE WAL MART/ /, which infringe the registered Walmart marks of the plaintiff. The marks are also prominitenly physically displaced outside the shops run by the defendant, as well as on Justdial and Findglocal and other such websites. Given the reputation of the plaintiff, the plaint alleges that the defendant is not only infringing the plaintiff’s registered trade mark but is also passing off its goods and services as those of the plaintiff.

7. This, it is submitted, has also resulted in dilution of the plaintiff’s global reputation.

8. At the time of issuing summons in the suit on 27th July 2022, this Court, noting the fact that a prima facie case of infringement and passing off was made out against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff, granted an ex-parte interlocutory ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, as well as all others acting on its behalf, from using the mark and name WAL-MART/WALMART at any physical or virtual locations well as e-commerce platform, online directory or trade website. That interlocutory order continues to hold the field till date.

9. Though two orders passed by this Court in the present proceedings state that the written statement filed by the defendant was under objections, no such written statement is forthcoming on the record.

10. In view of the continued non-appearance on the part of the defendant, this Court proceeded against the defendant ex-parte on 7th February 2023 and also confirmed the ad interim order date 27th July 2022 pending disposal of the suit.

11. Today, too, there is no appearance on behalf of the defendant. No pleadings, from the side of the defendant, are forthcoming. The assertions in the plaint have, therefore, gone unrebutted.