Liberty Tea Company vs Mohammed Shafiq Abdulla

parties and the Defendant submits to decree on admission in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d) of the plaint. The consent terms are tendered which are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. The consent terms are signed by the partners of the Plaintiff and by the Defendant which is a proprietary firm. The partners of the plaintiff and the Defendant are present in Court. The Defendant has been explained the consequence of decree on admission and he accepts the same.

¶12

2. In light of the above, the Suit is decreed on admission in terms

¶13

of prayer clause (a) to (d) of the plaint which reads as under:

1 of 3

sa_mandawgad

11 ia(l)12541-25

(a) the Defendant by themselves, their proprietor, servants, agents,stockists, distributors, assignees and all those connected with the Defendant in their business be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from manufacturing, trading, marketing, distributing, selling, offering for sale and/or using in any manner whatsoever in relation to its tea and such other like goods, the impugned mark of SHILTON TEA being deceptively similar to Plaintiff's trade mark SHIPTON TEA, so as to infringe upon on the Plaintiff's said trade mark SHIPTON TEA vide registration Nos. 1246324, 1406248, and 2233576, all in class 30;

¶18

(b) the Defendant by themselves, their proprietor, servants, agents, stockists, distributors, assignees and all those connected with the Defendant in their business be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from manufacturing, trading, marketing, distributing, selling, offering for sale and/or using in any manner whatsoever in relation to its tea and such other like goods, the impugned pirated artwork of SHILTON TEA (appended at Exhibit O to the Plaint) bearing colour scheme, lay-out, get-up, style, artwork and representation or any other artwork which is identical with and/or is substantially/strikingly similar as regards the colour scheme, lay-out, get-up, style, artwork and representation to the Plaintiff's original artistic label of SHIPTON TEA (appended at Exhibit E to the Plaint), so as to infringe upon the Plaintif's copyright registered under A-82326/2008 dated 13.03.2008, A-103051/2013 dated 07.08.2013 and A- 143071/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and the subsisting copyrights in the original artistic works of its SHIPTON TEA labels;

¶19

(c) the Defendant by themselves, their proprietor, servants, agents, stockists, distributors, assignees and all those connected with the Defendant in their business be

2 of 3

sa_mandawgad

11 ia(l)12541-25

restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from manufacturing, trading, marketing, distributing, selling, offering for sale and/or using in any manner whatsoever in relation to its tea and such other like goods, the impugned mark and the impugned trade dress depicted on their SHILTON TEA or from using any mark, label or trade dress identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's distinctive and prior used trade mark and trade dress of SHIPTON TEA, so as to pass off the Defendant's goods and business as and for those of the Plaintiff or in some way connected or associated therewith;

¶24

(d) the Defendant be ordered and decreed to deliver-up to the Plaintiff for destruction all such materials in relation to tea or other like goods used in respect of tea including poly bags, pouches, labels, stickers, advertising and packaging materials, dyes, screens, blocks, moulds, papers, vouchers, bill books, carry bags, and other goods bearing the impugned mark, pirated artwork and trade dress depicted on their SHILTON TEA pouches as complained off;”

¶25

3. The Court Receiver’s Report stands disposed of in view of the suit being decreed. The Court Receiver stands discharged without passing off account. All cost, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver to be paid by the Plaintiff within period of 7 days of the demand being raised by the office of the Court Receiver.

¶26

4. Interim Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and same stands disposed of.

¶27

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶28

3 of 3

¶29

sa_mandawgad

¶30

Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/06/2025 10:44:49

Liberty Tea Company v. Mohammed Shafiq Abdulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liberty Tea Company v. Mohammed Shafiq Abdulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs Official Liquidator for M/S. Kudus Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Dinesh Kalyanji Mav vs Motilal C.Kanuga and Anr.

Ashok Shewakramani vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Ors.

Everest Holdings Limited vs the Registrar of Trade Marks

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. vs Iheal Pharmaceuticals

Relcon Infraprojects Ltd. vs Bhagwandas Gupta