LATEST CASES

UNILEVER PLC & ANOTHER V. BANU CHAUHAN

Bombay High Court, September 27, 2018

The plaintiffs had a trademark for the words DOMEX for cleaning liquids. The defendants were using a deceptively similar word HOMEX and selling same products. The Court granted relief to the plaintiff by issuing a temporary injunction restraining the defendant, their partners, servants, employees, agents, stockists, dealers, distributors and all persons claiming under him from using the plaintiff’s trademark DOMEX in relation to cleaning liquids. Further, the court issued a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned trademark HOMEX in relation to cleaning liquids.

M/S SHREE RAJMOTI INDUSTRIES V. M/S SHRI VISHWAPRABHA FOOD

Delhi High Court, September 27, 2018

The issue before the court was whether the use of the words ‘RAJMOTI RICE’ would amount to an infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark RAJMOTI. The plaintiff was using the trademark for several decades selling edible oils including groundnut oil and cotton seed oil. The defendants were selling similar products i.e. rice under the name RAJMOTI RICE. An ex-parte ad interim injunction had been granted in May 2014 restraining the defendants from using the words ‘RAJMOTI RICE’ until the final disposal. Since both of them were selling allied/cognate products which were products of human consumption having the same class of consumers, the court opined that it was usual for the plaintiffs to expand their business into allied goods. Thus, the court issued permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.

JUNGLEE PICTURES V. JOY THOMAS PROPRIETOR OF M/S JUBILEE PICTURES

Delhi High Court, October 9, 2018

The plaintiff here is the producer of the film ‘Badhai Ho’ who has filed a suit under Section 60 of the Indian Copyright Act seeking an injunction against the defendant. The defendant is repeatedly threatening the plaintiffs of legal proceedings on grounds that the plaintiff’s movie infringes his copyright in the script and movie ‘Pavithram’. The court has disposed of the case stating that as per the proviso to Section 60, this Section does not apply to the present case as the defendant had already filed a case in the Kottayam District Court.

RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL V SHIV KUMAR AGARWAL

Calcutta High Court, October 11. 2018

The petitioners had been using their registered trademark “GANAPATI’ for several years and it had become a common name in all households. They had been using the mark extensively since 1996. Due to its excellent quality of catering services under the brand "GANPATI'S" the brand has acquired enormous goodwill in the market and the brand "GANPATI'S" is associated with the petitioners. The respondent was a new entrant in the business and started using the same name for selling the same products. The mark used by the defendants was indistinguishable and anyone having a look at it would be easily confused. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark ‘GANAPATI’ and infringing the plaintiff’s registered trademark. The use of the mark by the defendants was not honest/bona fide considering the good will that the plaintiff’s mark has in the market.