LOREAL Vs MY DOLLAR STORE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

       

        CS(OS) 1444/2008

       

        M/S L'OREAL .....

        Plaintiff

        Through Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman and Mr. Shashi P. Ojha,

        Advocates.

       

       

      versus

       

        MY DOLLAR STORE AND ANR. ..... Defendant

        Through Nemo.

       

        CORAM:

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

       

         O R D E R

         30.07.2008

       

       

       

        I.A. Nos. 8834-36/2008

        

        Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Plaintiff will file typed copy

        and English translations within four weeks. Original documents will be

        produced/filed in the Court as and when directed.

        The applications are disposed of.

       

        CS(OS) No. 1444/2008

       

        Let the plaint be registered.

        Issue summons to the defendants by all modes prescribed under Order V

        Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for 5th November, 2008.

      Steps will

        be taken within one week.

        I.A. No. 8833/2008

        Learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks permission to file affidavit of

        Mr. Sheel Bansal, constituted attorney of the plaintiff. Permission is

      granted.

        Affidavit is permitted to be filed and will be kept in Part-II file.

        Plaintiff claims that he had adopted word/mark ?Maybelline? in 1917 and

        the said mark enjoys considerable goodwill and reputation all over the

      world.

        The said mark is also registered in India in respect of cosmetics,

      bleaching

        preparations etc.

        It is stated in the plaint that the defendants are selling counterfeit

        goods, which are not manufactured by the plaintiff by the name

      ?Maybelline?.

        Photocopy of the packaging material including the box have been enclosed

      at

        pages 5 and 6 of the list of documents.

        In view of the averments made in the plaint, I feel the plaintiff has

        been able to make out a case for grant of ex parte injunction. The

      defendants

        and their agents are restrained from dealing and marketing ?Maybelline

      White

        Depilatory? packaging of which is enclosed at pages 5 and 6 of the list

      of

        documents dated 20th July, 2008, till the next date of hearing.

        Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 will be made within a period of three

        days.

        Liberty is also granted to the plaintiff to move an appropriate

        application before this Court in case they come across any other

      counterfeit

        product, which is being dealt with and sold by the defendants.

       

       

         SANJIV KHANNA, J.

       

        JULY 30, 2008

        VKR