Disposed

Marico Limited v. Mukesh Kumar M/S Kedia Industries & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Feb 2017FAO(OS) (COMM)/18/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Departmental Appeal regarding a trademark dispute over bottle color labels was disposed of. The High Court directed the single judge to re-list a specific interim application on an earlier date due to a long adjournment, noting the unresolved dispute over Pantone color codes.

What did the court decide?

Directed IA No.14758/2016 to be listed before the single judge on 21.02.2017 instead of 01.05.2017.

Marico Limited Vs Mukesh Kumar M/S Kedia Industries & Ors. — Delhi HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~36

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) (COMM) 18/2017

¶4

MARICO LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr C.M. Lall with Ms Shika Sachdeva & Mr Prafhat Kalra, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

MUKESH KUMAR M/S KEDIA INDUSTRIES & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Jaspreet Singh Kapur, Adv.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 15.02.2017

¶11

We had attempted to resolve the controversy between the parties with regard to the label and colour. The learned counsel for the defendant had agreed to change the coconut device as well as the colour of the EVEREST label as also the coconut tree which is shown on the products. However, the matter got stuck with regard to the background colour, namely, the colour of the bottle itself.

¶12

According to the appellant/plaintiff, the defendant could use any colour bearing numbers PMS 288, 289, 295, 296, 281 and 282 in the pantone colour chart. The colour used by the appellant/plaintiff is PMS 285C. However, the suggestions given by the learned counsel for the appellant are not acceptable to the learned counsel for the defendant who suggests that they be permitted to use PMS 287, 2935, 2945. Unfortunately, this dispute could not get resolved here.

¶13

This matter has come up before us for the simple reason that the learned single Judge has given long date of 01.05.2017 in the matter. We feel that unresolved part of the dispute could be examined by the learned single Judge but

¶14

on an earlier date. Consequently, we direct that IA No.14758/2016 be listed before the learned single Judge on 21.02.2017 instead of 01.05.2017. The learned counsel for the appellant has also raised other issues with regard to the shape of the bottle but those would not be pressed only if the defendant accepted using any of the colours suggested by the appellant. The suggestions made towards the settlement are only to be taken as steps towards resolving the disputes. They are obviously not to be taken as concessions on either side.

¶15

The appeal stands disposed of.

¶16

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

¶17

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

¶18

FEBRUARY 15, 2017 ns

Marico Limited v. Mukesh Kumar M/S Kedia Industries & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marico Limited v. Mukesh Kumar M/S Kedia Industries & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hpl (India) Limited & Ors. Vs Qrg Enterprises & Anr.

Shiv Kumar Wasal & Co. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Shiv Kumar Wasal and Company Vs Delhi Development Authority

Raj Bala Garg ( Deceased) through Her Husband Sh. Subhash Chand Vs Union of India and Ors.

Narendra Nath Nanda Vs State & Ors.

Kashyap Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mac Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.