VINI COSMETICS PVT LTD VS ABHAY ENTERPRISES

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI     CS(OS) 2483/2014     VINI COSMETICS PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff     Through: Mr.S.K. Bansal, Advocate         versus         ABHAY ENTERPRISES and ORS ..... Defendant     Through         CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI      O R D E R      20.08.2014     I.A.15576/2014 (EXEMPTION)     Allowed, subject to just exceptions.     Application stands disposed of.     I.A. 15575/2014 (EXEMPTION)     Let the original documents be filed within ten weeks and the   legible documents / with proper left hand margin be filed within the same   period.     Application stands disposed of.     CS(OS) 2483/2014 and I.A. 15574/2014 (u/O.39 Rs=1 and 2 CPC)     Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction,   restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of   accounts, damages and delivery up against the defendants.     Plaintiff is stated to be inter alia engaged in the business of   manufacturing and marketing of all kinds of cosmetics and proprietary   products including lotions, talecum power etc. The goods of the   plaintiff are being manufactured and sold under a distinctive trade mark   / label ?GLAM ? UP? label, claiming user of the same since September,   2012. The details of registration of the plaintiff?s trade mark have   been extracted in paragraph 5 of the plaint.     Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant no.1 is   manufacturing counterfeit products in China with respect to identical   trade mark and packaging as that of the plaintiff. The impugned goods   bear the name of the manufacturer as the plaintiff and the place of   manufacture is shown as India, whereas the goods are counterfeit and   products are not manufactured by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the   shipment of defendant no.1 has arrived at Sahar, Andheria (East) Mumbai,   containing the counterfeit products.     It is further submitted that as per the practise, in case a trade   mark is registered with the customs authorities, the customs authorities   at the request of the genuine trade mark holder ordinarily seizes the   counterfeit goods. In this case, however, the plaintiff has applied for   registration of its trademark with the customs authorities after the   arrival of the shipment. In these circumstances, plaintiff prays for   grant of ex parte ad interim injunction, as in case the counterfeit   products are allowed to be released and sold in the market unwary   customers are likely to be deceived and misled that the goods which are   being sold are genuine goods of the plaintiff.     Issue summons in the suit and notice in the application by all   modes, including DASTI, returnable on 15.10.2014.     I have heard counsel for the plaintiff and perused the plaint,   application and the supporting documents. I am satisfied that this is a   fit case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction and in case the ex     parte ad interim injunction is not granted, not only the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss, but also the unwary customers are likely to be   deceived. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, defendant no.1,   its proprietor, partners, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns,   heirs, successors, stockists and all other acting for and on their behalf   are restrained from importing, using, selling, soliciting, exporting,   displaying advertising by visual, audio, print mode or by any other mode   or manner or dealing in or using the impugned trade mark / label ?GLAM-   UP? or any other trademark / label identical with and /or deceptively   similar the trademark. Till the next date of hearing, defendants No.2   and 3 are restrained from releasing the Bill of Entry No.4976446 dated   22.3.2014. DASTI.     Provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be complied with, within 3 days.             G.S.SISTANI, J     AUGUST 20, 2014     ssn             CS(OS) 2483/2014 3/3         $ 44