Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Darja Ram Juha Ram — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Darja Ram Juha Ram — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to the Plaintiff to de-seal and destroy the infringing/counterfeit goods seized by the Court Receiver, retaining a few samples for the purpose of trial, upon making a fresh inventory of the destroyed goods and a fresh inventory of the retained samples; fresh inventory of destroyed goods to be filed in Court within four weeks; Court Receiver discharged without passing of accounts, with its costs, charges and expenses payable by the Plaintiff within eight weeks of demand.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Plaintiff should be permitted to destroy the infringing goods bearing counterfeit marks seized by the Court Receiver (by removing the seal), retaining a few samples of each of the goods for the purpose of trial.

Court's answer

Considering the limited shelf life of the products, which are counterfeit and of substandard quality, no purpose will be served by keeping the seized goods in custody till the hearing and final disposal of the suit; for the purpose of trial, a few samples of the seized goods can be retained by making a fresh inventory.

Ratio / Principle

As the goods have limited shelf life, are already deteriorating and are counterfeit, destruction is the only option.

Key takeaways

The Interim Application is allowed: the Plaintiff is permitted to de-seal the infringing goods and destroy the same, making a fresh inventory of the destroyed goods and a fresh inventory of the retained samples.ratio¶30
The fresh inventory of the destroyed goods is to be filed in this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶31
The Court Receiver stands discharged without passing of accounts; all costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver are to be paid by the Plaintiff within a period of 8 weeks of demand being raised by the Office of the Court Receiver.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim Application allowed (Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.). Hindustan Unilever Limited, Plaintiff in Commercial IP Suit No. 448 of 2025, sought permission to destroy infringing goods bearing counterfeit marks seized by the Court Receiver (per Court Receiver's Report No. 500 of 2024 and Report No. 20 of 2025) and kept in the Plaintiff's premises on superdari after inventory; the seized goods included gunny bags packed with counterfeit products, packaging rolls, a machine, cylinders, bottles, stickers and other goods of limited shelf life, which were of substandard quality, deteriorating, emanating foul odour and posing a potential health hazard at the storage place. Held: considering the limited shelf life of the products, which are even otherwise counterfeit and of substandard quality, no purpose will be served by keeping the seized goods in custody till the hearing and final disposal of the suit; the goods being already deteriorating and counterfeit, destruction is the only option. The Plaintiff was permitted to de-seal the infringing goods and destroy them, making a fresh inventory of the destroyed goods and a fresh inventory of the retained samples (few samples retained for trial); the fresh inventory of destroyed goods is to be filed in Court within four weeks. The Court Receiver stands discharged without passing of accounts, with all costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver to be paid by the Plaintiff within eight weeks of demand. After execution of the commission no reply was filed by the Defendants; the action was initially a John Doe action and the Defendants were subsequently identified as manufacturers. The Court was informed that the Plaintiff had already settled the matter with Defendant No. 4.

28-IA-4214-2025.doc

TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO

Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2025.08.14 14:17:39 +0530

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

IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4214 OF 2025 IN

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 448 OF 2025

Hindustan Unilever Limited … Applicant/ Plaintiff Versus Darja Ram Juha Ram … Respondent/ Defendant

Mr. Hiren Kamod , Ms. Niyati Davawala, Mr. Anil Shete, & Ms. Dhanashree Yeole i/by Niyati Davawala for Applicant/Plaintiff.

Mr. Deepak S. Bhalerao 2^nd Asst to Court Receiver present.

—————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : August 12, 2025.

P. C. :

1. This is Court is informed that the Plaintiff has already settled the

matter with Defendant No. 4.

2. Interim Application has been preferred by the Plaintiff seeking

permission to the Plaintiff to destroy the infringing goods bearing the counterfeit marks which are seized by the Court Receiver as mentioned in the Court Receiver’s Report No. 500 of 2024 and Court Receiver’s

Report No. 20 of 2025 by removing the seal and retaining few samples of each of the goods for the purpose of trial.

1 of 3

Shubham

28-IA-4214-2025.doc

3. Mr. Kamod, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff tenders the affidavit of service evidencing service upon the Defendants who are the manufacturers of the infringing goods.

4. The Application specifically pleads that counterfeit goods were seized from the Defendants’ premises by making inventory and are kept in the Plaintiff’s premises on superdari . The goods seized include the gunny bags packed with counterfeit products, packaging rolls, machine, cylinders, bottles, stickers and other goods having limited shelf life. Mr. Kamod would submit that these products are otherwise of substandard quality and are deteriorating emanating foul odour making it unviable to keep them stored for long period of time as it may pose health hazard at storage place. He submits that no purpose would be served by preserving counterfeit products and for the purpose of trial, a few samples can be retained by making fresh inventory.

5. After execution of commission, no reply has been filed by the Defendants. The action was initially in the nature of John Doe action and subsequently the Defendants were identified, who are the manufacturers.

6. Considering the limited shelf life of the products, which are even otherwise counterfeit, and are of substandard quality, no purpose will be served by keeping the seized goods in custody till the hearing and

2 of 3

Shubham

28-IA-4214-2025.doc

final disposal of suit. For the purpose of trial, few samples of the goods so seized can be retained by making a fresh inventory.

7. The commission was executed at several locations and the goods were seized which are substantial in number. The goods having limited shelf life, are already deteriorating and as the same are counterfeit, destruction is the only option.

8. In the light of above, Interim Application is allowed by permitting the Plaintiff to de-seal the infringing goods and destroy the same by making a fresh inventory of destroyed goods and fresh inventory of the retained samples.

9. Fresh inventory of the destroyed goods to be filed in this Court within a period of four weeks from today.

10. The Court Receiver stands discharged without passing off accounts. All costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver to be paid by the Plaintiff within a period of 8 weeks of demand being raised by the Office of the Court Receiver.

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

3 of 3

Shubham