Allowed

Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. v. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2011S/1359/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court decreed the suit filed for infringement of a registered design and copyright in an artistic work. Finding that the defendants copied the plaintiff's design, moldings, and color scheme on toilet cleaning material bottles, and drawing an adverse inference due to their total absence, the court granted relief and awarded nominal damages.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed for infringement as prayed; nominal damages of Rs. 55,000 awarded to the plaintiff.

Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. Vs Balsara Hygiene… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2011)

s1359-93

vai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

SUIT NO.1359 OF 1993

¶6

Reckitt & Colman of India Limited ....Plaintiff V/s.

¶7

Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. ....Defendants

¶8

Ms.Karishma Shirke i/b Gordhandas & Fozdar for the Plaintiff.

¶9

None for the Defendants.

¶10

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2011.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

This is an action for infringement of the registered design of the plaintiff and for infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in the artistic work by applying the same to the plastic bottles and selling liquid toilet cleaning material in bottles wherein the design has been copied.

¶13

There can be no doubt that the defendants have copied the

¶14

plaintiff’s design in almost every respect. The general get up is identical. Moreover the mouldings are also the same. The colour scheme is the same.

¶15

By an order dated 20.4.1993, the learned single Judge rejected the application for interim reliefs on the ground that the features of the designs were dictated solely by function. The Division

¶16

¶17

s1359-93

¶18

Bench of this Court in Appeal No.278 of 1993 in Notice of Motion No. 829 of 1993 set aside the order, observing that the reasons furnished by the learned single Judge were not accurate.

¶19

The plaintiff is admittedly the registered proprietor of the design. There is no written statement. The defendants are absent.

¶20

The plaintiff has claimed only nominal damages in the sum of Rs.55,000/-. I am inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendants on account of their having remained absent throughout to the effect that they have remained absent, knowing that if their records had been produced, the plaintiff’s case even regarding damages, would have been established.

¶21

In the circumstances, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d) and (j). Costs to be quantified as per rules.

¶22

Prayer (c) shall be complied with within eights weeks of the

¶23

defendants being served a copy of this order.

¶24

Refund, if any, as per rules.

Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. v. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. v. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akruti City Limited. Vs Aakruti Estates Private Limited, Gujarat.

Franco-Idian Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd.and Anr. Vs M/S East West Pharma and Anr.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs Liver Foods (India) Pvt. Ltd.and Anr.

Kashiram M. Kanojiya Vs Ravishankar Gangubai Charitable Trust and 6 Ors.

Daman Metalic Oxides and Rajendra Prasad Bansal Vs Sumukha Electroplaters and B. Mohan Kumar

Shaha Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs Honkkong and Shanghai Baning Corporation Ltd.