Allowed

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Aura Oil Industries and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2011S/162/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit for trade mark infringement and passing off, the plaintiff sought protection for 'LIFEBUOY' and its design against defendants using 'LIFEMAN'. The plaintiff did not appear until the process of serving a copy was complete. The defendants remained absent throughout the trial, even during interlocutory proceedings, and no written statement was filed. The court found a deceptive similarity i

What did the court decide?

The suit was decreed in terms of prayers (a) to (f) and (m). The defendants' goods were seized by the Court Receiver. Costs are to be quantified as per rules. Prayer (f) to be complied with within eig

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs Aura Oil Industries and Anr. — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2011)

3.s.162.2005

skt

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

¶5

SUIT NO.162 OF 2005

¶6

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. ..Plaintiff

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

Aura Oil Industries & Anr. ..Defendants ..........

¶9

Mr.Amit Jamsandekar i/b M/s.A.R.Vaidya & Co. for the Plaintiff.

¶10

None for the Defendants.

¶11

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 12^TH AUGUST 2011.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1 This is an action for infringement of trade marks and copyright and for passing off.

¶14

2 The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark including the word mark ‘LIFEBUOY’ and ‘LIFE’ and devise/label mark wherein the word mark ‘LIFEBUOY’ forms a prominent part.

¶15

3 The defendants have used the word ‘LIFEMAN’. I do not suggest that the use of the word ‘LIFE’ by itself constitutes infringement. However,

¶16

2 - 3.s.162.2005

¶17

the use of the word ‘LIFEMAN’ may well indicate/represent that the products emanates from the plaintiff for the use by adults whereas the products under the plaintiff’s mark ‘LIFEBUOY’ could be used even for children. In the circumstances, there is a deceptive similarity between the two marks, although phonetically they may be different. Moreover, the marks are written in the same manner.

¶18

4 The plaintiff started using its marks in the year 1895. The first mark was registered in the year 1943. The sales figures mentioned in the plaint establishes the enormous goodwill and reputation developed by the plaintiff in respect of the said marks.

¶19

5 The defendants have remained absent throughout - even in the interlocutory proceeding. Despite the interlocutory orders, the defendants have remained absent even thereafter. There is no written statement. There is nothing on record that militates against the averments and submissions made in the plaint. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the averments and submissions made in the plaint.

¶20

6 The defendants have also infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in the artistic work on the packaging and label. The essential features are comprised of the use of the colours red, white and yellow in stripes. The

¶21

3 - 3.s.162.2005

¶22

placing of the stripes is different but the devise is the same. The placement of the persons on the label is also similar, though the people are different. The placement of the other words such as ‘Toilet Soap’ and ‘For Family Health’ are also similar.

¶23

7 In the circumstances, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a) to (f) and (m). The defendants’ goods were seized by the Court Receiver. It is stated that the goods seized by the Court Receiver was stored in the plaintiff’s godowns which was destroyed in the year 2005. The report has been filed by the Court Receiver to that effect. There was no objection by the defendants for the same. Costs to be quantified as per rules. Prayer (f) shall be complied with within eight weeks of being served a copy of this order by the defendants.

¶24

8 The Court Receiver shall stand discharged without passing accounts but subject to payment of his costs, charges and expenses. The plaintiff shall stand discharged in respect of the indemnity bond issued to the Court Receiver, eight weeks after the period of limitation for filing an appeal against this order expires.

¶25

Refund of court fees, if any, as per rules.

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Aura Oil Industries and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Aura Oil Industries and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. B. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs M/S. Green Herbs Manufacturing Co. and Anr.

Mrs. Shakuntala Chandrakant Katakkar Vs Talegaon Dabhade Municipal Council (Tmc)

Meenakshi Prabhakar Patil Vs Pravin Madhukar Thakur

A/S Dan Bunkering Ltd. Vs M.V. Iron Butterfly and Anr.

Proctr and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd. and Anr. Vs New Wishpar Hygiene and Healthcare

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd.