Allowed

moothdath panjab ramchandran and Anr. v. usha and sons industies and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Feb 2012S/1294/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court decreed a suit for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off in an absentia hearing. The suit was allowed based on the plaintiff's averments regarding deceptive similarity of trade dress and promotion of goodwill.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in terms of prayers (a) to (e) and (k). Receiver to continue in execution.

moothdath panjab ramchandran and Anr. Vs usha and sons industies and Anr. — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

s1294-06

vai

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

¶5

SUIT NO.1294 OF 2006

¶6

M.P. Ramchandran & Anr. ....Plaintiffs V/s.

¶7

Usha & Sons Industries & Anr. ....Defendants

¶8

Mr.Hiren Kamod i/b Mr.H.W. Kane for the Plaintiffs.

¶9

None for the Defendants.

¶10

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

This is an action for infringement of trademark and copyright and for passing off.

¶13

The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the label mark comprising of the device of a blue bottle with a fancy shape. The bottle has a white cap. The bottle has on it a label which bears a write-up of

¶14

the plaintiffs products. Prominent on the label is the word “UJALA”.

¶15

The defendant has used a bottle, the design and shape of which is almost identical. The writing is circumscribed by a white line which is not a perfect circle. Below the word “USHA” is the word “UJALA”. The word “USHA” is not as prominent as the word “UJALA”. Although the writing / literature on the two labels is different, the entire

¶16

¶17

s1294-06

¶18

get up, shape/design of the bottle, including the cap is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs label mark. Added to this is the fact that the word “UJALA” has been used in a prominent manner in the defendant’s work.

¶19

The sales figures annexed as Exhibit D to the plaintiffs products sold under the said mark establish that the plaintiffs products sold under the said mark have developed a reputation and goodwill sufficient to maintain an action for passing off. The total sales figures and advertisement expenses during the year 1983 - 1984 were Rs. 41,655/- and Rs.8,102.88 respectively. The same increased rapidly over the years. In the year 2004 - 2005, the sales figures and advertisement expenses were over Rs.146.20 crores and about Rs.13.65 crores respectively.

¶20

For the reasons aforesaid, the plaintiff has also made out a case for infringement of copyright.

¶21

The defendants were absent when the ad-interim order was passed. They were absent when the Notice of Motion was heard finally. They are absent today despite the fact that interim orders were passed against them. The defendants’ notice of motion to set aside the adinterim order was dismissed for default. There is nothing on record that militates against the submissions and averments in the plaint. This is a fit case to accept the submissions and averments in the plaint as correct.

¶22

¶23

s1294-06

¶24

In the circumstances, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a) to (e) and (k). The Receiver appointed by the interim order shall continue in execution. The Receiver shall, however, not implement prayer (e) until after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing an appeal against this order and for a further period of four weeks thereafter. Upon executing the decree in terms of prayer (e), the Receiver shall stand discharged without passing accounts, but subject

¶25

to payment of his costs, charges and expenses, if any.

¶26

Costs to be quantified as per rules.

¶27

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

moothdath panjab ramchandran and Anr. v. usha and sons industies and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

moothdath panjab ramchandran and Anr. v. usha and sons industies and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balwinder Singh Gujra Vs Nabila Mohiddin Sayyed and Anr.

State Bank of India Vs Jitendra M. Yadav

M/S. Raj Oil Mills Vs Daawat Industries

M/S. Klt Automotive and Tubular Products Ltd. Vs Mr. v. Subbuiraman and Munir Ahmed

Kantilal Otarmal Vs Raghvendra M. Kotian and Anr.

Sandeep M. Loyalka Vs Jamnadas and Sons and 5 Ors.