Partly allowed

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Sandeep Kumar Andani

Bombay HC21 Oct 2016LPETN/286/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil suit regarding trademark infringement over soap bars, the High Court of Bombay allowed the Plaintiffs' suit. The Court ordered inventory, sealing, and destruction of infringing goods by a Court Receiver, permitted the reuse of raw material in a non-infringing manner, and decreed the suit with no order as to costs, rendering a Notice of Motion infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed; goods to be inventoried, sealed, and destroyed by Court Receiver; Defendants may reuse raw material non-infringing manner; Notice of Motion disposed of as infructuous.

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Sandeep Kumar Andani — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

P5-NMSL2803-16.DOC

¶2

SHEPHALI

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT (L) NO. 926 OF 2016

¶4

WITH

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2803 OF 2016

¶6

AND

¶7

LEAVE PETITION NO. 286 OF 2016

¶8

…Plaintiffs

¶9

Hindustan Unilever Limited …Plaintiffs
Versus
Sandeep Kumar Andani, trading as Sandeep
Soaps…Defendants

¶10

Mr. Ashutosh Kane, i/b W. S. Kane, for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Alankar Kirpekar, i/b Jaya Manghvani, for the Defendants.
Mrs. Kavita Ambekar, IInd Assistant to the Court Receiver.

¶11

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 21st October 2016

¶12

PC:-

¶13

1. Not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board.

¶14

2.For the reasons set out therein, the Leave Petition is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

21st October 2016

¶17

P5-NMSL2803-16.DOC

¶18

3.Mr. Kirpekar, on instructions from the Defendants, submits
to a decree in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (e) and (g) of the Suit.
Mr. Kane, therefore, does not press the prayer for damages.

¶19

4.The Court Receiver took charge of the entire factory
premises. He was obstructed in carrying out the orders dated 5th
October 2016 and 17th October 2016 and was prevented from
entering the Defendants’ premises. Within those premises are
several items with the infringing marks and labels. These are yet to
be inventoried. That process of inventory and sealing will be
completed on 24th October 2016, without waiting for this order to
be uploaded or for an authenticated copy of it.

¶20

5.The Court Receiver will, on the next visit, make an inventory,
and also remove the seal that has been placed on the premises. The
Defendants will be at liberty to access the premises thereafter. The
inventoried and sealed goods will be destroyed by the Court
Receiver immediately thereafter in the presence of the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs’ representatives may remain present if they wish.

¶21

6.The Defendants will be at liberty to re-use the soap bars
themselves by melting them down and re-shaping these in a non-
infringing manner.

¶22

7.While the arrangements for the Court Receiver’s second
visit, travel and staying arrangements will be made by the Plaintiffs,
the costs are to be paid by the Defendants.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

21st October 2016

¶25

P5-NMSL2803-16.DOC

¶26

8.The Suit is decreed in these terms with no order as to costs.
Drawn up decree is dispensed with. The drawn up decree is
dispensed with. However, should the parties require a drawn up
decree, they will be entitled to apply to the Department for one
without having to make a separate application in that behalf and on
production of an authenticated copy of this order.

¶27

9. Refund of Court Fees, if any, in accordance with the Rules.

¶28

10.In view of this, the Notice of Motion does not survive and is
disposed of as infructuous.

¶29

11.All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.

¶30

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

21st October 2016

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Sandeep Kumar Andani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Sandeep Kumar Andani

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

Cleartrip Private Limited Vs My Travel Genie C/O Spin Travels Services Private Limited and 2 Ors.

Lumenpulse Lighting Inc. Vs Lumenpulse Lighting Technologies Respresented by Abhay Shah

Pidilite Industries Limited Vs Poma-Ex Products and 15 Ors.

Shri Parmandar Chaman Datta Vs Nirmal Parmandar Datta

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Sandeep Kumar Andani

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Sandeep Kumar Andani