Samex India Pvt Ltd Vs Mohammed Adams

Injunction Granted for Similar Colour Combination Despite Different Trademarks

In the complex world of trademark law, the protection of a brand’s identity extends beyond just its name or logo. The visual appearance, including color schemes and packaging, plays a critical role in creating a unique brand identity that consumers recognize and trust. The case of Samex India Pvt Ltd v. Mohammed Adams, Sole Proprietor of Ms. Lail Spices, decided on August 1, 2024, by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, underscores the importance of safeguarding these elements from imitation by competitors. This article provides a detailed analysis of the court’s decision to grant an injunction based on the similarity in color combination and packaging, despite the use of different trademarks.

Background: The Dispute Between "Emperor Akbar Green Cardamom" and "Mubarak Green Cardamom":

Samex India Pvt Ltd, originally established as a partnership firm in 1981 and later converted into a private limited company in 2016, has established itself as a market leader in the sale of packaged branded Indian green cardamom. The company’s flagship product, marketed under the "Emperor Akbar Green Cardamom" brand, has garnered significant popularity both in India and internationally. The plaintiff company has registered several trademarks related to this brand and claims ownership of the copyrighted artistic work involved in its distinct packaging design.

The defendant, Mohammed Adams, who had a professional association with Samex from May 2021 to February 2023 as a supplier, launched his own product, "Mubarak Green Cardamom," after the end of this association. Samex India Pvt Ltd alleged that the defendant's product packaging and labels were deceptively similar to their own, leading to potential consumer confusion. Despite receiving a cease and desist notice, the defendant continued to market and sell his product with packaging that closely resembled that of Samex’s "Emperor Akbar Green Cardamom."

Legal Issue: Can Similar Colour Combinations Constitute Trademark Infringement, even when Trademarks are different?

A key issue in this case is whether the use of similar color combinations and packaging can be considered trademark infringement or passing off, even when the trademarks themselves are different. Trademark law recognizes that the overall appearance of a product, known as its “trade dress,” can be just as important as the trademark itself in identifying the source of goods or services.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s use of a color scheme, artwork, and packaging design that closely mirrored their own amounted to infringement of their registered trademarks and copyrighted artistic works. The plaintiff also contended that the defendant’s actions constituted passing off, as the similarities in packaging could mislead consumers into believing that the defendant’s products were associated with or endorsed by Samex.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

The High Court of Bombay examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and made several key observations that led to the grant of an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff:

Conceptual Similarity in Packaging:

The court found that the defendant's packaging for "Mubarak Green Cardamom" was conceptually similar to the plaintiff's "Emperor Akbar Green Cardamom." The similarities were not limited to just the color combination but extended to the overall design, including the placement of elements and the artistic style. The court noted that such similarities could easily lead to consumer confusion, particularly when the products are placed side by side in a retail setting.

Defendant’s Prior Association with the Plaintiff:

The court also took into account the fact that the defendant had a prior association with Samex as a supplier. This relationship provided the defendant with insider knowledge of the plaintiff’s branding and packaging strategies. The court inferred a dishonest motive on the part of the defendant, suggesting that he deliberately adopted a similar packaging design to benefit from the plaintiff’s established market reputation.

Infringement and Passing Off:

Relying on precedents such as Sopariwalla Exports v. Kuber Khaini Pvt. Ltd., 2012 PTC 348, the court ruled that the defendant’s actions amounted to both trademark infringement and passing off. The court emphasized that trademark infringement is not limited to the use of identical marks but also includes the use of marks or trade dress that are deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers.

Grant of Interim Injunction:

Given the prima facie case established by the plaintiff, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned trademarks and packaging design. The court also ordered the defendant to disclose details of the sales and distribution of the infringing goods, thereby protecting the plaintiff’s interests until the final resolution of the case.

Implications of the Decision:

This ruling highlights the importance of protecting the overall trade dress of a product, including color combinations and packaging design, which play a crucial role in consumer recognition and brand identity. The decision underscores that trademark protection extends beyond the mere name or logo and includes the visual and aesthetic elements that contribute to a brand’s uniqueness.

The case also illustrates the risks associated with allowing former business associates or suppliers to launch competing products with similar packaging. Companies must remain vigilant in protecting their intellectual property rights, especially when dealing with individuals who have had access to proprietary information.

Conclusion:

The High Court of Bombay’s decision to grant an interim injunction in favor of Samex India Pvt Ltd serves as a significant reminder that trademark law encompasses more than just the protection of names and logos. The overall look and feel of a product, including its color scheme and packaging design, are integral to a brand’s identity and are entitled to protection against imitation.

This case sets a strong precedent for future disputes involving similar trade dress and highlights the judiciary's willingness to grant injunctions to protect established brands from unfair competition. As businesses continue to navigate competitive markets, the safeguarding of trade dress will remain a crucial aspect of trademark enforcement, ensuring that consumers can rely on the distinctiveness of their preferred brands.

Case Citation: Samex India Pvt Ltd Vs Mohammed Adams:01.08.2024 : COM IPR SUIT NO.352 OF 2023: Delhi High Court: R.I. H.J

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
United & United, Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,
Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Himalaya Wellness Company Vs Vlado Sky Enterprises

Suit for Infringement is Maintainable Against Another Registered Proprietor

Background:

A critical question in such cases is whether a suit for trademark infringement can be maintained against a defendant who also holds a registered trademark. This article explores this issue through the lens of the case where the plaintiffs, owners of the well-known "HIMALAYA" brand, brought an infringement action against Vlado Sky Enterprise Private Limited, the proprietors of the "HIMALAYAN ORGANICS" trademark. his case underscores the importance of protecting established trademarks from infringement, even when the alleged infringer holds a registered trademark.

The Dispute Between "HIMALAYA" and "HIMALAYAN ORGANICS":

The plaintiffs, a company with a long-standing reputation in the herbal healthcare industry, have been using the "HIMALAYA" trademark since 1930. Their brand is synonymous with high-quality herbal products, enjoying widespread recognition and goodwill in both domestic and international markets. The defendant, Vlado Sky Enterprise Private Limited, registered the trademark "HIMALAYAN ORGANICS" and marketed products under this brand.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's use of the "HIMALAYAN ORGANICS" trademark was deceptively similar to their "HIMALAYA" mark. They contended that the similarity between the marks was likely to cause confusion among consumers, who might mistakenly believe that the defendant's products were associated with or endorsed by the plaintiffs. Moreover, the plaintiffs accused the defendant of imitating their distinctive packaging and overall brand identity, further exacerbating the likelihood of confusion.

Legal Issue: Can an Infringement Suit Be Maintained Against a Registered Proprietor?

A significant aspect of this case is the legal question of whether an infringement action can be maintained against a defendant who is also a registered proprietor of a trademark. The plaintiffs relied heavily on the precedent set in the case of Raj Kumar Prasad and Another v. Abbott Healthcare (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7708, wherein the Delhi High Court held that a suit for infringement is maintainable even against another registered proprietor.

In Raj Kumar Prasad, the court observed that mere registration of a trademark does not grant an absolute right to use the mark in a manner that infringes on the rights of another registered proprietor. If a mark is deceptively similar to an existing registered trademark, the latter's proprietor can still seek relief through an infringement action. This principle reinforces the idea that trademark registration does not provide carte blanche to infringe upon the established rights of others.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

In the present case, the court undertook a thorough examination of the facts, focusing on several key factors that ultimately led to the grant of an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs:

Long-Standing Use and Reputation of the "HIMALAYA" Trademark:

The plaintiffs demonstrated extensive use of the "HIMALAYA" trademark, dating back to 1930. Over the decades, they had built a global reputation in the herbal healthcare sector, making "HIMALAYA" a household name. The court recognized the substantial goodwill attached to the "HIMALAYA" brand, which was deserving of protection against any form of dilution or confusion.

Deceptive Similarity and Market Confusion:

The court found that the defendant's trademark, "HIMALAYAN ORGANICS," bore a striking resemblance to the plaintiffs' "HIMALAYA" mark. The similarity was not only in the name but also in the overall presentation of the products. The court agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that this resemblance was likely to confuse consumers into believing that the defendant’s products were associated with the plaintiffs, thereby infringing on the latter’s trademark rights.

Reliance on Precedent:

The court also endorsed the judgment in Raj Kumar Prasad v. Abbott Healthcare (P) Ltd., reaffirming that a suit for infringement is maintainable against another registered proprietor. This legal precedent provided a solid foundation for the plaintiffs' case, underscoring that trademark registration is not an impenetrable shield against infringement claims.

Implications of the Decision:

The court's decision in this case has significant implications for trademark law, particularly concerning the rights and obligations of registered proprietors. It reiterates the principle that registration of a trademark does not confer an unfettered right to use the mark if such use infringes on the rights of another registered proprietor.

Conclusion:

The court's reliance on the Raj Kumar Prasad precedent reinforces the notion that trademark rights are not absolute and must be exercised in a manner that respects the rights of other proprietors. As businesses continue to expand and diversify, it is crucial for trademark proprietors to remain vigilant and proactive in defending their brands against any form of infringement, regardless of the registration status of the competing mark.

Case Citation: Himalaya Wellness Company Vs Vlado Sky Enterprises:13.08.2024 : CS Comm 682 of 2024: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna, H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Whitehat Education Technology Vs Aniruddha Malpani

Accessibly of tweets and Trademark Jurisdiction

Introduction:

In today's digital age, where social media platforms like Twitter serve as powerful tools for communication and expression, the legal implications of online content, particularly concerning trademark infringement and defamation, have become increasingly complex. A recent order from the High Court of Delhi in the case of WhiteHat Education Technology Private Limited v. Aniruddha Malpani sheds light on the evolving jurisprudence around the accessibility of online content and its impact on determining territorial jurisdiction in trademark disputes. This article delves into the key legal principles involved in this case, focusing on how the accessibility of tweets can establish jurisdiction in trademark infringement and defamation cases.

Background of the Case:

WhiteHat Education Technology Private Limited (the plaintiff), a prominent educational technology company, filed a suit against Aniruddha Malpani (the defendant), seeking a permanent injunction to restrain him from defaming the company, infringing its trademarks, and engaging in unfair competition. The plaintiff's claims were primarily based on a series of tweets posted by the defendant, which were allegedly defamatory and caused harm to the plaintiff's business and reputation.

The defendant, in response, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking the rejection of the plaint on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The defendant argued that both the plaintiff’s registered office and his residence were in Mumbai, Maharashtra, and that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. He contended that the tweets, although accessible online, did not specifically target the jurisdiction of Delhi.

Legal Framework: Jurisdiction in Civil Cases and the Role of Online Content:

Jurisdiction in civil cases is primarily governed by Section 20 of the CPC, which outlines the places where a suit can be instituted. According to Section 20, a suit can be filed where the defendant resides, carries on business, or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The challenge in cases involving online content, such as tweets, lies in determining where the cause of action arises, given the global reach of the internet.

Key Legal Provisions:

Section 20 CPC: Governs the territorial jurisdiction of courts in civil suits, allowing suits to be filed where the defendant resides, or where the cause of action arises.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Provides for the rejection of a plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action or if the court lacks jurisdiction.

In the context of trademark infringement and defamation, the accessibility of online content within a specific jurisdiction can be a decisive factor in establishing where the cause of action arises. Courts have increasingly recognized that the mere accessibility of defamatory content in a particular jurisdiction can suffice to confer jurisdiction, provided the plaintiff can demonstrate that the content has caused harm within that jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis: Accessibility of Tweets and Territorial Jurisdiction:

The Delhi High Court, in this case, focused on the specific issue of whether the accessibility of the defendant's tweets within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court. The plaintiff argued that the tweets were accessible in Delhi and that they targeted the plaintiff’s customers in the city, thereby causing reputational and commercial harm within the jurisdiction.

The court, while considering the defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, cited several precedents where it had entertained similar suits based on the accessibility of online content. The court noted that in cases involving online defamation or trademark infringement, the accessibility of the content in the jurisdiction where the suit is filed is a crucial factor. The court further observed that the defendant did not dispute the accessibility of the tweets in Delhi, thereby strengthening the plaintiff’s claim that the cause of action, at least in part, arose within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

Key Findings:

Accessibility as a Basis for Jurisdiction:

The court reaffirmed that the accessibility of online content, such as tweets, within a particular jurisdiction can establish a sufficient cause of action for the purposes of determining territorial jurisdiction.

Effect on Local Customers:

The court emphasized that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that the tweets were directed at its customers in Delhi, causing harm to its business reputation and commercial interests in the city. This, the court held, was a valid basis for invoking its jurisdiction.

Precedential Support:

The court referenced several precedents where similar claims had been upheld based on the accessibility of online content within the jurisdiction, thus aligning its decision with established legal principles.

Implications of the Judgment: Jurisdiction in the Digital Age

The Delhi High Court’s order in WhiteHat Education Technology Private Limited v. Aniruddha Malpani has significant implications for jurisdictional issues in the digital age. The judgment underscores the principle that the accessibility of online content within a jurisdiction, and the resulting harm within that jurisdiction, can be sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction in civil cases involving defamation and trademark infringement.

Key Implications:

Broadening the Scope of Jurisdiction:

The judgment potentially broadens the scope of jurisdiction in cases involving online defamation and trademark infringement, allowing plaintiffs to file suits in jurisdictions where the harmful content is accessible and causes local harm.

Balancing Free Speech and Legal Accountability:

While the internet allows for the free exchange of ideas and opinions, this judgment highlights that such freedom must be balanced with legal accountability, particularly when online content causes harm to individuals or businesses in specific jurisdictions.

Future of Online Disputes:

As more disputes arise from online content, courts may increasingly rely on the accessibility of such content as a key factor in determining jurisdiction. This could lead to a more nuanced approach to jurisdictional issues in the digital age, with courts closely examining the impact of online content within specific jurisdictions.

Conclusion

The order of the Delhi High Court in WhiteHat Education Technology Private Limited v. Aniruddha Malpani serves as an important precedent in the evolving landscape of jurisdictional law in the context of online content. By upholding the accessibility of tweets within its jurisdiction as a valid basis for hearing the case, the court has reaffirmed the principle that online content, while global in reach, can have specific legal consequences in local jurisdictions. This decision will likely influence future cases involving online defamation and trademark infringement, particularly in an era where the boundaries of jurisdiction are increasingly tested by the digital world.

Case Citation: Whitehat Education Technology Vs Aniruddha Malpani:08.08.2024 : CS Comm 518 of 2020: Delhi High Court: Saurabh Banerjee, H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd Vs Ucon Pt Structural System

In the High Court of Delhi, the case of Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd. (plaintiff) versus Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited (formerly Utracon Structural Systems Private Limited) and others (defendants) unfolds with a series of interlocutory applications (I.A.) ,The case, numbered CS(COMM) 661/2024, is a testament to the intricacies of intellectual property law, particularly concerning trademark and copyright infringement.

The core of the plaintiff's case lies in its claim for a permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants for trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and related offenses. The plaintiff, a company known for its engineering solutions and services, holds the registered trademark "UTRACON" and has used various iterations of this mark.

It alleges that despite the termination of a license agreement, the defendants continue to use the UTRACON marks and logo, potentially diluting the plaintiff's brand and causing market confusion.

In response to these allegations, The court grants an interim injunction, stating: "Defendant nos. 1 to 7, their partners, associates, affiliated companies, entities, subsidiaries, directors, wholesalers, distributors, partners or proprietors, as the case may be, its officers, servant and agents, or anyone acting for or on their behalf are restrained from using in any manner whatsoever in relation to any of the plaintiff’s services, the plaintiff’s UTRACON marks and/or any other variant thereof or any other mark/device/logo/domain name or trade name, which is identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s prior and registered UTRACON logo."

The court directs defendant no. 8 to block the domain name www.utraconindia.com.

Case Citation: Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd Vs Ucon Pt Structural System.:07.08.2024 : CS Comm 661 of 2024: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna, H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

ULink AgriTech Private Ltd Vs SML Ltd

Order 39 Rule 3 CPC: Requirement of assigning reasons while granting ex parte ad interim injunction

Introduction:

Injunctions, particularly ex parte ad interim injunctions, are powerful judicial tools used to preserve the status quo pending the resolution of a dispute. However, the grant of such injunctions without notice to the opposite party must be carefully circumscribed by procedural safeguards to prevent misuse. The recent judgment by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in ULink AgriTech Private Ltd. v. SML Limited (OSA No. 5 of 2024) emphasizes the importance of assigning reasons when granting ex parte injunctions, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India. This article offers a detailed analysis of the legal principles involved in granting ex parte ad interim injunctions and the procedural safeguards that must be observed by the judiciary.

Background: The Case and Its Procedural Context:

ULink AgriTech Private Ltd. (the appellant) filed an appeal against an ex parte ad interim injunction granted by a Single Judge in favor of SML Limited (the respondent/plaintiff). The injunction restrained the appellant from allegedly infringing the respondent’s patent rights under Indian Patent No. 282092. The appellant contested the injunction on the grounds that the Single Judge had failed to provide the necessary reasons for granting it, as required by Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908.

Order 39 Rule 3 CPC mandates that when a court grants an ex parte injunction, it must record the reasons for doing so, particularly because the order is issued without notice to the opposite party. The appellant argued that the Single Judge’s order merely echoed the plaintiff's submissions without independently assessing the facts, balance of convenience, or potential irreparable harm—elements critical to the issuance of such an injunction.

Legal Framework: Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and Judicial Precedents:

Order 39 Rule 3 CPC outlines the procedure for granting an ex parte injunction, emphasizing the need for transparency and judicial reasoning. The rule serves as a safeguard against arbitrary or unjustified injunctions, ensuring that the rights of the absent party are not unduly compromised. The Supreme Court of India has reiterated the necessity of recording reasons in various judgments, underscoring that the absence of such reasons can render an order vulnerable to challenge.

Key Elements for Granting an Ex Parte Injunction:

Prima Facie Case: The court must be satisfied that there is a strong prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff.

Balance of Convenience: The court must assess whether the balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiff, meaning that the harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted would outweigh the harm to the defendant if it is granted.

Irreparable Harm: The court must determine whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages if the injunction is not granted.

These elements must be supported by clear and cogent reasoning in the judicial order.

Arguments and Counterarguments: The Appeal:

In the appeal, the appellant’s counsel argued that the Single Judge’s order lacked the necessary reasoning, thereby failing to meet the procedural requirements of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The appellant contended that the order was a mere recital of the plaintiff’s claims without an independent judicial assessment. This failure, they argued, amounted to a miscarriage of justice, warranting the setting aside of the injunction.

On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel maintained that the order contained sufficient reasoning and that the appeal itself was not maintainable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, or the High Court Rules. The respondent argued that the injunction was rightly granted to protect the plaintiff's patent rights and that the absence of detailed reasoning did not invalidate the order.

High Court’s Analysis and Judgment:

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh focused on the limited aspect of whether the Single Judge’s order contained the reasons mandated by the CPC. The court clarified that it did not intend to delve into the merits of the patent infringement claim but was solely concerned with the procedural propriety of the injunction order.

Key Findings:

Maintainability of the Appeal:

The High Court held that the appeal was maintainable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the CPC, as the order lacked the requisite reasons for granting an ex parte injunction.

Lack of Recorded Reasons:

The court found that the Single Judge’s order did not satisfy the requirement of recording reasons. The order’s statement that a prima facie case was made out and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff was deemed insufficient. The court emphasized that judicial orders must reflect an independent application of mind to the facts and legal standards, rather than a mere repetition of the plaintiff’s assertions.

Remitting the Case for Fresh Consideration:

The High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Single Judge for fresh consideration. The court directed that the case be decided expeditiously, allowing the appellant to file a reply to the original motion petition within one week.

Implications of the Judgment: Judicial Discretion and Procedural Safeguards

The High Court’s judgment underscores the importance of procedural rigor in the granting of ex parte injunctions. By insisting on the requirement of assigning reasons, the court reaffirmed the principles of transparency and accountability in judicial decision-making. The judgment serves as a reminder that while ex parte injunctions are sometimes necessary to prevent immediate harm, they must be granted with caution, supported by a detailed and reasoned order.

The requirement to record reasons also ensures that the judiciary exercises its discretion judiciously, protecting the rights of all parties involved. This judgment may set a precedent for future cases, particularly in the realm of intellectual property rights, where ex parte injunctions are frequently sought.

Conclusion:

The judgment in ULink AgriTech Private Ltd. v. SML Limited highlights a critical aspect of procedural law: the necessity of assigning reasons while granting ex parte ad interim injunctions. The decision reinforces the need for judicial orders to reflect a careful and reasoned analysis, particularly when the order is issued without hearing the opposite party. As courts continue to navigate the complexities of injunctions in intellectual property disputes, this judgment serves as an important precedent, ensuring that the principles of fairness and due process are upheld in all judicial proceedings.

Case Citation: ULink AgriTech Private Ltd Vs SML Ltd.:20.08.2024 : OSA No.5 of 2024: 2024:HHC:7049: Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla: M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice and Satyen Vaidya, H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Pidilite Industries Limited Vs John Doe-Ashok Kumar & Ors

Overview of the Plaintiff's Case:

Pidilite Industries Limited:

A leading company in the adhesives, sealants, construction chemicals, hobbies colours, and polymer emulsions sectors in India.

Founded in 1959, the company has grown to become a market leader

Its brand names, such as FEVICOL, DR.FIXIT, ARALDITE, and FEVIKWIK, are well-known and trusted by millions of customers.

Plaintiff's Intellectual Property Portfolio.

Holds numerous trademark registrations for the DR.FIXIT and ARALDITE brands in various classes.These trademarks have been declared as well-known trademarks under Section 2(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

Also holds design registrations for the packaging and containers of DR.FIXIT branded products.

Alleged Infringement by the Defendants:

Counterfeit Products Bearing the Plaintiff's Trademarks

Defendants nos. 2-5 are involved in the unauthorized manufacture, sale, and distribution of counterfeit products bearing the ARALDITE mark

Defendants nos. 4-8 are involved in the unauthorized manufacture, sale, and distribution of counterfeit sealant adhesive products bearing the DR.FIXIT mark

Differentiation Between Plaintiff's and Defendants' Products:

DR.FIXIT Products:

Plaintiff's products have a transparent vertical measuring line and clear image of a concrete mixer on the label. Defendants' counterfeit products lack these features.

ARALDITE Products:

Plaintiff's products do not have a shelf life mentioned, have smaller hazard symbols, and a specific batch number sequence.Defendants' counterfeit products have these features in a different manner.

Orders Granted by the Court.

Interim Injunction.

The defendants are restrained from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in the impugned products or any other products identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademarks DR.FIXIT and ARALDITE.

Case Citation: Pidilite Industries Limited Vs John Doe-Ashok Kumar & Ors :19.07.2024 : CS Comm 586 of 2024:Delhi High Court: Saurabh Banerjee, JJ. H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.