The interpretation of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the application of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the Code of Civil Procedure were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave had been given to learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff for presenting the plaint at 2 p.m. today.

2. The suit is for restraining the defendant from using the mark “HANDSOME” and/or “GLOW & HANDSOME” for grooming products for men.

3. The defendant’s mark is “FAIR AND HANDSOME”. The plaintiff claims ownership of its mark and hence seeks to institute the suit upon the plaint being presented under the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff hands up an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a Commercial suit of 2020 (LD/VC/IA/1/2020 IN LD/VC/144/2020 - Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Emami Limited) which is a suit filed by the defendant herein against the plaintiff wherein an order of injunction was passed yesterday i.e. on 6th July, 2020. Counsel claims that the plaintiff herein was served with the order passed in Bombay High Court after the plaint had been finalized for filing.

5. From the order it seems that the subject matter of the suit filed in the Bombay High Court deals with the mark “GLOW & HANDSOME”. The effect of the order, passed ex parte, of injunction would appear from paragraphs 13 and 14, which are set out below:

“13. I have heard the submissions made by Mr. Kamod and perused the record. Prima facie it does appear that having filed its trade mark application in September 2018 and subsequently on 25th June, 2020 for the mark ‘GLOW & HANDSOME’, the Plaintiff is the prior adopter of the said mark. Further, from a perusal of the newspaper cutting at Exhibit-S to the Plaint, it prima facie appears that the Plaintiff has already started commercial advertisements in respect of the trade mark ‘GLOW & HANDSOME’. From a perusal of Exhibit W, it prima facie appears that the Defendant has adopted the ‘GLOW AND HANDSOME’ mark for the first time on 25th June 2020 and has not commercially used it till date. The statements made by the Defendant and published in various newspapers annexed to the Plaint do amount to a threat, however, whether they are unlawful or groundless, that is something that will have to be decided after hearing both the sides. Today, the Plaintiff is pressing for a limited relief that the Defendant should give at least 7 clear days prior written notice to the Plaintiff before initiating any legal proceedings in any court or claiming any interim or ad-interim reliefs against the Plaintiff as threatened in the statements issued / made on behalf of the Defendant against the Plaintiff’s use of the trade mark ‘GLOW & HANDSOME’. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I believe that no harm or prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the said limited relief is granted.

14. In view of what is stated in paragraph 29 of the Plaint and in view of the above, I am satisfied that the object of granting the following reliefs would be defeated if notice of this application is given to the Defendant. There shall accordingly be an ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Interim Application, which reads as follows: (a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant, its directors, proprietors, partners, owners, servants, subordinates, representatives, dealers, against and all other persons claiming under it be directed by this Hon’ble Court to give at least 7 clear working days prior written notice to the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s advocates’ address at 91-92, 9th Floor Sakhar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 by registered post acknowledgement due (R.P.A.D) including the email address viji.malkani@unilever.com and vaibhav.k@legasispartners.com before initiating any proceedings including legal proceedings in any court or claiming any interim or ad-interim reliefs against the Plaintiff as threatened in the statements issued/made on behalf of the Defendant against the Plaintiff’s use of the trade mark ‘GLOW & HANDSOME’;”

6. In essence, the plaintiff herein w