Showing posts with label VINI COSMETICS PVT LTD VS ABHAY ENTERPRISES. Show all posts
Showing posts with label VINI COSMETICS PVT LTD VS ABHAY ENTERPRISES. Show all posts

Friday, April 6, 2018

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
 
  
 

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK  REGISTRA...

My Blog List

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog