Court Grants Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement Case Involving 'Liv.52'
In a significant development in the realm of trademark protection, the Hon'ble Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, following an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). This decision forms part of an ongoing suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for the alleged infringement of the plaintiffs' registered trademark 'Liv.52'.
Background of the Case
The plaintiffs, well-known for their product 'Liv.52', initiated legal proceedings to obtain a permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendants were accused of manufacturing, selling, distributing, promoting, and indirectly dealing in goods and packaging bearing the mark 'LIV-333', which the plaintiffs claim is identical or deceptively similar to their registered trademark 'Liv.52'. In addition to this, the plaintiffs sought attendant reliefs concerning their trade dress and device mark.
Court's Findings
Upon careful consideration, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case warranting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The Court's findings were based on the following considerations:
Prima Facie Case: The plaintiffs presented compelling evidence that the defendants' use of 'LIV-333' is likely to cause confusion among consumers, infringing upon the plaintiffs' trademark rights.
Balance of Convenience: The Court determined that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs. The potential harm to the plaintiffs' brand and consumer trust far outweighs any inconvenience the injunction may cause to the defendants.
Irreparable Harm: The Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. This includes loss of goodwill, market share, and potential dilution of their trademark 'Liv.52'.
Injunction Order
As a result of these findings, the Court issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction effective until the next hearing date. The order specifically restrains the defendants from Manufacturing, selling, distributing, and promoting any goods or packaging bearing the mark 'LIV-333'.
Using any mark that is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trademark 'Liv.52'.
Implications:
This ruling highlights the Court's proactive stance in protecting trademark rights and preventing consumer confusion. By granting the ex-parte ad-interim injunction, the Court has temporarily halted the defendants' alleged infringing activities, thereby safeguarding the plaintiffs' interests pending further legal proceedings.
Case Title: Himalaya Global Holdings Limited Vs Rajasthan Aushadhalaya Pvt. Ltd.
Judgement/Order Date: 24.05.2024
Case No. CS Comm 433 of 2024
Neutral Citation: NA
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Anish Dayal. H.J.
Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
United & United
Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com
Ph No: 9990389539
