Dismissed

Jackson Paper Products Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Prakash Gokar Chamariya @ Prakash G Chamariya

Bombay HC13 Jul 2016CONP/45/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the High Court accepted the respondent's apology and undertaking not to use deceptively similar trademarks. The court declined to impose monetary penalty due to the respondent's meagre means and discharged the contempt notice.

What did the court decide?

No monetary penalty imposed; contempt notice discharged; seized goods to be destroyed by petitioner.

Jackson Paper Products Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Prakash… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

919-CONPL13-16.DOC

¶2

SHEPHALI

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (L) NO. 13 OF 2016

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT NO. 2221 OF 2011

¶6

Jackson Paper Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.…Petitioners
Versus
Prakash Gokar Chamariya alias Prakash alias
Chamariya…Respondent

¶7

Mr. Atul S. Singh , for the Petitioners. Mr. Rajesh B. Talekar , i/b Mr. Abhijit B. Salve for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:13th July 2016

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.The Respondent Mr. Prakash Gokar Chamariya is personally
present in Court. This morning he tendered an Affidavit dated 10th
July 2016. At the end of this Affidavit, he apologises
unconditionally. Before that, however, he sets out his case, which is
this: He says that he was served with a copy of an ex parte decree
dated 22nd March 2013 in May 2015. The records indicate
otherwise. But that is not the principal issue. The Respondent says
that in November 2015 he spoke with one of the Plaintiffs’ directors,
one Mr. Dinesh Magia and sought permission to dispose of unsold
stock. He says that he received this permission, stopped

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

13h July 2016

¶13

919-CONPL13-16.DOC

¶14

manufacturing and by March 2016, had sold almost all his inventory.
He sold his machinery by April 2016 and had very nearly vacated his
shop by 17th May 2016. He was unable to repay the loan taken from
his landlord and the premises were locked. He says in paragraph 4
that the goods seized on 14th July 2016 were not manufactured by
him or acquired by him.

¶15

2.However, what is stated in paragraph 5 is that his wife
Jayshree is the registered proprietor of two marks SATIKSON and
MARULIS. With the assistance of his younger brother Dilip
Chamariaya she sells tissue boxes under these marks. He claims that
they have a distinctive colour scheme, artwork and get up that is
completely different from the Plaintiff’s trade mark and tissue box
artwork, colour scheme, etc. Annexed to this Affidavit are some
samples of the boxes. Actually, there is no difference at all, and the
marks the Defendant uses are deceptively similar to those of the
Plaintiffs. The decree is not restricted to the Defendant from using
the Plaintiff’s registered mark. The prohibition extends to the
Defendant using any other similar mark or same get up. It is not
open to the Defendant to run his business through his wife or
brother in this manner either, and in a previous order, I noted that
the box allegedly made by his wife has the Defendant’s email id,
website and phone number. This is not denied.

¶16

3.In the next paragraph, the Respondent says that there are
other offenders in the market. It is his case that there others who
also make almost identical boxes with very similar names but against
whom the Plaintiffs have not proceeded. They use names like
LACKSON, ZACKSON, JAISON, MACKSON, ACKSON. All of

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

13h July 2016

¶19

919-CONPL13-16.DOC

¶20

these have a colour combination of yellow, white and red. All of
them feature the Maruti vehicle, sometimes misspelled as Maartui.
Each one of these marks is an infringing mark. Both of these
constitute violation of an ex parte order. It is no answer for the
Defendant in this contempt action to say that the Plaintiffs have not
proceeded against other infringers.

¶21

4.In the morning session, I kept the matter back to enable Mr.
Talekar to take instructions as to whether the Respondent’s wife and
brother would file Affidavits as well. They are also present in Court
and they have also filed Affidavits today. In paragraph 3, they say
that they will not engage in the business of selling tissue papers
under the competing marks, including SATIKSON and
MARULIS.

¶22

5. I accept all these undertakings and I accept the apologies too.

¶23

6.I must admit that I find it very difficult to accept Mr. Singh’s
argument for the Plaintiffs that there should be some sort of
monetary penalty imposed on the Respondent-Defendant and his
family. One look at them is enough to show that they are of meagre
means, desperately scratching out a living in a city that never makes
this easy. The Plaintiffs may have rights over their intellectual
property. In pursuit of the protection of those rights, they cannot
expect to use the law courts to grind a poor man and his family into
the dust.

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

13h July 2016

¶26

919-CONPL13-16.DOC

¶27

7. There will be no monetary penalty on the Defendant or his family. Their undertakings are enough. These are accepted.

¶28

8. The contempt notice is discharged.

¶29

9.The Petition is disposed of with these observations. There
will be no order as to costs.

¶30

10.The Petitioner will be at liberty to destroy the goods that have
been seized by the Court Receiver and are lying with the Plaintiffs.

¶31

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶32

Page 4 of 4

¶33

13h July 2016

Jackson Paper Products Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Prakash Gokar Chamariya @ Prakash G Chamariya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jackson Paper Products Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Prakash Gokar Chamariya @ Prakash G Chamariya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttamchand Devichand Shah Vs Bansi Jaisingh and Anr.

Sebastian Andrade Vs Expedia Inc. and 3 Ors.

Garware Polyster Limited Vs 3M Company and Anr.

Radhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Farid Abdul Latif Noorani Vs Applebees Hospitality LLP and 6 Ors.

Farid Abdul Latif Noorani Vs Applebees Hospitality LLP and 6 Ors.