The Bombay High Court has issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, prohibiting a Trampoline Park located in Lonavla from utilizing the trademark, artwork, device, or character associated with Mr. Bean, the beloved protagonist from the iconic comedy series that debuted in January 1990.

Upon comparison between the registered Mr. Bean trademark and the purportedly infringing trademark of the trampoline park, the court reached the conclusion that..

“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 disputed 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 issued a restraining order, prohibiting the trampoline park from engaging in any commercial activities utilizing marks containing the words 'Mr. Bean' / 'Mr. Been' or any other trademark, artwork, or character that could be deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark.

In an interim application within a commercial intellectual property lawsuit brought by Tiger Aspect Kids & Family Ltd. against Mr. Bean Trampoline Park in Lonavla, operated by Rupesh Dighe, the court was tasked with addressing the plaintiff's request for perpetual injunction and restraining orders against the defendant. The plaintiff alleged passing off goodwill, trademark infringement, and copyright infringement.

The plaintiff is a UK-based company operating under the umbrella of the Banijay Group, which is headquartered in Paris, France. The Banijay Group boasts a diverse portfolio of media and entertainment productions, encompassing well-known titles such as "Survivor," "Big Brother," and "Mr. Bean."

Based on trademark registrations, agreements across multiple jurisdictions, including India, and being the producer of the show, movies, and animated series, the plaintiff asserts ownership of the copyright and merchandising rights pertaining to the original artistic work, trademark, device, and character of Mr. Bean.

The plaintiff has presented evidence of broadcasting and utilizing the said works, as well as merchandise featuring the trademark and Mr. Bean artwork/device/character, on various channels and OTT/online platforms like Amazon, YouTube, etc., all of which are readily accessible in India.

The plaintiff has accused the defendant of exploiting its trademarks, artwork, and character for commercial gain. Despite the defendant's website becoming non-functional after receiving cease and desist notices, the plaintiff claimed to have discovered posters near Lonavala advertising the park as "Mr. Been Trampoline Park" instead of "Mr. Bean." Additionally, in December 2023, the plaintiff opposed the defendant's trademark application filed in November 2022.

According to the plaintiff, during a visit to the park, its representative observed that the park's theme prominently revolved around Mr. Bean, suggesting an affiliation with the plaintiff's brand. Furthermore, the defendant operated a café named "Bean's Cafe" and a restaurant offering dishes such as "Mr. Bean's Special Pavbhaji & Pulav," alongside selling merchandise featuring the disputed marks.

After initiating the current lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges to have discovered that the defendant had launched another website bearing a striking resemblance to its mark. This new website purportedly changed the park's name from "Mr. Bean Trampoline Park" to "Mr. Been Trampoline Park" subsequent to receiving cease and desist notices.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant's utilization of the disputed marks constituted an infringement upon its rights, highlighting both visual and conceptual similarities with its trademarks and artistic works. Asserting a substantial reputation and goodwill associated with their trademarks, artwork, and character, the plaintiff contended that consumer confusion was inevitable given the resemblance between the defendant's marks and its own widely recognized trademarks.