Allowed

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Utttam Gorai

Bombay HC14 Dec 2022IA/2764/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court made the ex-parte ad-interim reliefs absolute in a commercial IP suit regarding trademark infringement and passing off involving Surf Excel, acknowledging the defendant's failure to appear despite service.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim reliefs made absolute; application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), and (c); Court Receiver discharged without passing up accounts.

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Utttam Gorai — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

37.IA.2764.2022.doc

¶2

SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI

¶3

Digitally signed by SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2022.12.17 11:35:34 +0530

¶4

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

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2764 OF 2022 WITH COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO. 126 OF 2022 IN

¶6

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 243 OF 2022

¶7

Hindustan Unilever Limited

¶8

...Applicant/Plaintiff

Versus

Uttam Gorai

...Defendant

Mr. Vinod Bhagat, Mr. Karan Khilani i/by G.S. Hegde and V.A. Bhagat for Plaintiff.

¶14

¶15

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J DATE : 14^TH DECEMBER, 2022.

¶16

P. C. :

¶17

In this application by order dated 30^th March, 2022, this Court granted ex-parte ad-interim reliefs in favour of the Plaintiff. The order was executed and the Court Receiver’s Report is on record.

¶18

On 09^th November, 2022, this Court allowed the Leave Petition, in the light of the fact that the Defendant was served. Thereupon, ad-interim relief concerning action of passing off was also granted and the application was directed to be listed for final disposal today.

¶19

Even today, despite service, the Defendant has chosen not

¶20

to appear before this Court. In this situation, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff is pressing for the ad-interim reliefs to be made absolute

Page1 of 3

Shrikant

37.IA.2764.2022.doc

and the application to be allowed.

¶25

This Court has considered the material on record, particularly the comparison of the impugned product of the Defendant and the impugned trademark, with the product of the Plaintiff bearing the registered trademark. It is found that the impugned trademark of the Defendant is not only deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the Plaintiff, but, the colour scheme, trade dress and the depiction on the package of the impugned product, copies the essential and prominent features of the registered trademark and trade dress of the Plaintiff. The impugned trademark is found to be phonetically and structurally similar as the registered trademark of the Plaintiff which is ‘Surf Excel’, while that of the Defendant is ‘Super Excel’.

¶26

All these factors were recorded in detail in the orders dated 30^th March, 2022 and 09^th November, 2022, passed by this Court when the ad-interim reliefs were granted for the action of infringement as well as passing off.

¶27

The Defendant has not appeared to deny any specific allegations made by the Plaintiff. This Court is convinced that a strong prima facie case is made out in favour of the Plaintiff. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the Plaintiff, for the reason

Page2 of 3

Shrikant

37.IA.2764.2022.doc

that unless such interim reliefs are granted, the Plaintiff is likely to suffer grave and irreparable loss. In the light of the above, the adinterim reliefs granted by this Court are made absolute and the application stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c).

¶32

In the light of the above, the Court Receiver’s Report is disposed of and the Court Receiver is discharged, without passing up of accounts.

¶33

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶34

Page3 of 3

¶35

Shrikant

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Utttam Gorai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Utttam Gorai

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

Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kal Radio Limited and Anr.

M/S. O.L.C.I. Engineering India Private Limited Vs Dheeraj Prasad

Endo Lighting Accessories (India) Private Limited Thr.Its Mr. Toshiyuki Shindo Vs Paradigm Lighting Solutions Private Limited

Jagruti Ketan Sheth the Ex-Director of Giltedge Management Services Limited(in Liqn) vs O.L.R. in Liquidation(Mp) and Giltedge Management Services Ltd.

Mr. Sambhaji Popatrao Jagtap, Proprietor of M/S. Jagtap Associates Vs Bank of Maharashtra and Anr.

Matrukrupa Enterprises, Thr. Its Partner Ramchandra Lalmani Tiwari Vs M/S. Kalyani Construction Thr. Its Partner Shailendra M. Singh