Allowed

Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. & Anr. v. Manufacturer Marketer of Mul Ice Cream through Mr Sanjeet Gulia & Ors.

Delhi HC16 May 2024CS(COMM)/299/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court decreed a suit for permanent injunction filed by Amul against an ice cream manufacturer. Upon the defendant's willingness to pay INR 6 lakhs, destroy infringing materials, and accept a permanent injunction, the suit was disposed of on amicable terms. Intermediaries were noted to have complied with earlier orders.

What did the court decide?

Permanent injunction restraining use of infringing marks; payment of INR 6 lakhs; destruction of infringing materials; refund of court fees.

Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 299/2023

¶4

GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Elvin Joshy, Ms. Alisha Sharma, Mr. Amal Anand and Mr. Shashwat Tyagi, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

MANUFACTURER MARKETER OF MUL ICE CREAM THROUGH MR SANJEET GULIA & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Ranjeet Mishra, Advocate for D- 1.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 16.05.2024

¶9

The Plaintiff No. 1, Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd, is a cooperative society and Plaintiff No. 2, is a District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union federated to Plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiffs are engaged in marketing of milk, milk products including ice creams and other food and beverages under the trademark “AMUL” throughout the country and abroad. 2. Plaintiff No. 2 is the registered proprietor of the trademark “AMUL”¹ and other formative marks having “AMUL” as the prominent part. The oldest registration of the Plaintiffs’ trademark is from 1958, under No. 185698 (Journal No. 260) in Class 29, in relation to milk and milk products. Further, Plaintiffs also claim rights over the slogan/tagline “ Real Milk. Real Ice Cream ” under which its products have been advertised.

¶10

1 “Plaintiffs’ trademark”

¶11

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2024 at 11:46:39

¶12

The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from selling, manufacturing, advertising,

¶13

promoting or in any manner using or dealing in the marks “

¶14

”,

¶15

“ ”, “ ”, “ ”, “ ”² or any other mark or tagline which is identical or deceptively similr to the Plaintiffs’ trademark/tagline. Defendant No. 1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling ice cream under the infringing marks. Further, Plaintiffs also seek necessary directions/orders to be issued to Defendants No. 2 and 3, Meta Platforms Inc. and Just Dial Limited respectively, from advertising or selling Defendant No. 1’s products which bear the infinging marks. 4. This Court vide order dated 11^th May, 2023, passed a ex parte ad interim injucntion against Defendant No. 1 and dirceted Defendnats No. 2 and 3 to suspend the accounts/profile of Defendant No. 1 on their respective platforms. Thereafter, during the course of proceedings, since Defendant

”,

2 “Infringing marks”

No. 1 expressed their wish to explore amicable resolution of the dispute, the Court reffered the parties to mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. However, the mediation did not result in a settlement.

¶20

On the last date of hearing on 25^th May, 2024, Mr. Ranjeet Mishra, Counsel for Defendant No. 1, stated on instructions that in order to resolve the matter amicably, Defendant No. 1 has expressed willingness to suffer a decree of permanent injunction against using the infringing marks or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark. Further, Defendant No. 1 is willing to give an undertaking that they have destroyed all materials which bear the infringing marks and make a payment of INR 6 lakhs towards full and final settlement of the Plaintiffs’ monetary claims arising out of the present suit.

¶21

Mr. Abhishek Singh, counsel for Plaintiffs, confirms receipt of payment of INR 6 lakhs. He acknowledges that the said payment has been accepted by Plaintiffs towards full and final settlement against the claim of damages/rendition of accounts in respect of subject matter of the present suit. Defendant No. 1 has also furnished an undertaking, to the effect that they have destroyed all material bearing the infringing marks depicted in the prayer clause. The said undertaking has been handed over across the board and is taken on record.

¶22

Mr. Singh states that in light of the said undertaking of Defendant No. 1, the suit can be resolved by passing a decree in terms of prayers (i) and (ii) of the plaint, to which Mr. Ranjeet Mishra, counsel for Defendant No. 1, is agreeable. Furthermore, no final relief is being pressed against Defendants No. 2 to 3, who are intermediaries and have already complied with the Court orders.

¶23

¶24

In light of the above, the suit is decreed in favour of Plaintiff and against Defendant No. 1 in terms of prayers (i) and (ii) of the plaint, which shall form part of the decree. Defendant No. 1 shall remain bound by the undertaking given in the present case.

¶25

Since the suit is being resolved on amicable terms, Mr. Singh’s request for refund of court fees is accepted. Registry is directed to issue a certificate for refund of court fee, in favour of Plaintiffs.

¶26

10 The suit is decreed in the above terms. Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶27

The suit is disposed of.

¶28

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶29

MAY 16, 2024 d.negi

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2024 at 11:46:39

Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. & Anr. v. Manufacturer Marketer of Mul Ice Cream through Mr Sanjeet Gulia & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. & Anr. v. Manufacturer Marketer of Mul Ice Cream through Mr Sanjeet Gulia & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eastman Auto and Power Limited Vs Shreejee Power Systems LLP

CARS24 Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Girnarsoft Automobiles Private Limited & Ors.

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs Mr. Anil Kumar Thakur

Welspun Enterprises Limited Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Another

Amanpreet Kohli Vs Pankaj Dayal

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs Cactus Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Others

Spykar Lifestyles Private Limited Vs Shyam Plastic Industries & Ors.

Sumita Rani Prop.Thukral Mech. Works Vs Nitin Machines Tools and Ors.

Janssen Pharmaceutica Nv Vs Controller of Patents

Leonhard Kurz Stiftung and Co. Kg Vs Controller of Patents

Parijat Industries India Private Limited Vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.

Oakley Inc. Vs Zuverya Enterprise & Anr.

Manash Lifestyle Private Limited Vs Ocp Tech Industries Private Limited & Ors.

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs Cactus Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Others