Disposed

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Shakti Chemical Industry

Bombay HC31 Aug 2016S/824/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Court accepted the Defendant's undertaking to discontinue use of packaging deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's. The Suit was disposed of, seized packagings were to be destroyed, and the Defendant was granted liberty to use container contents. The Notice of Motion was discontinued.

What did the court decide?

Undertaking to discontinue deceptively similar packaging and destroy seized packagings accepted. Suit disposed. Notice of Motion discontinued. Court Receiver discharged upon Plaintiff payment of costs

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Shakti Chemical Industry — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

910-SL821-16.DOC

¶2

ATUL

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT (L) NO. 821 OF 2016

¶4

WITH

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2350 OF 2016

¶6

Hindustan Unilever Limited…Plaintiff
Versus
Shakti Chemical Industry…Defendant

¶7

Ms. Akshata Kamath, a/w Ms. Chitra Sundar, i/b W. S. Kane & Co.,
for the Plaintiff.

¶8

Mr. K. D. Shah, for the Defendant.
Mr. Mallikarjun Mahadev Kurabet, C.A. of Mrs. Chitra
Mallikarjun Kurabet, Proprietor of the Defendant, is present.

¶9

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 31st August 2016

¶10

PC:-

¶11

1.Mr. Shah appears for the Defendant. Mr. Mallikarjun
Mahadev Kurabet, Constituted Attorney of the Mrs. Chitra
Mallikarjun Kurabet, the Proprietor of the Defendant, is personally
present in Court. He personally gives an undertaking in terms of
prayer clauses (a), (b) and (d) of the Suit. This is accepted as an
undertaking to the Court. He clarifies that he has discontinued use
of the impugned packaging and states that he will not use such a
layout or artwork or one deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiffs

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

31st August 2016

¶14

910-SL821-16.DOC

¶15

at any time in future. This is also accepted as an undertaking to the
Court.

¶16

2. In view of these statements, Ms. Kamath does not press her prayer for damages.

¶17

3. The Suit is disposed of in these terms. Drawn up order is dispensed with.

¶18

4. Refund of court fee, if any, in accordance with the Rules.

¶19

5.The Court Receiver had seized certain goods. The packagings
will be destroyed by the Defendant at his cost in the presence of the
Plaintiffs’ representatives within a period of four weeks from today.
It is clarified that the Defendant is at liberty to use the contents of
these packagings.

¶20

6.The Court Receiver to stand discharged without passing
accounts, but on payment of his costs, charges and expenses by the
Plaintiffs within a period of four weeks from today.

¶21

7. In view of this, the Notice of Motion does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

8. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶23

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶24

Page 2 of 2
31st August 2016

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Shakti Chemical Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Shakti Chemical Industry

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

Ultratech Cement Limited and Anr. Vs Shiv Gement Co.

Ultratech Cement Limited and Anr. Vs Shiv Gement Co.

Dr. Behram Meherwanji Sethna Vs 1. Silloo Dara Zaiwalla

Hridaynarayan Kedarnath Upadhyay Vs Virendra Narayan Kedarnath Upadhyay and 3 Ors.

Mrs. Kesarabai Kamlakar Bagul Vs Santosh Kamlakar Bagul (Deceased)

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Sri Vignesh Enterprises and Anr.