The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of intellectual property rights, specifically trademark and copyright, under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. As per the plaint, the plaintiff prays for the following reliefs:

(a) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining all the defendants by themselves as also through their individual proprietors/partners, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising or by any other mode or manner dealing in or using the impugned trade mark L’OREAL with or without the word PARIS or any other word/mark which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar word/mark to the plaintiff’s said trade mark/trade name L’OREAL in relation to their impugned goods and business of cosmetics and other related/allied products and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to:-

(i) infringement of plaintiff’s aforesaid registered trademark L’OREAL.

(ii) Passing off and violation of the plaintiff’s rights in the plaintiff’s said trade mark L’OREAL.

(iii) violation of plaintiff’s proprietary rights in its trade name i.e., L’OREAL.

(iv) Infringement of plaintiff’s copyrights in its L’OREAL Label.

(b) for an order for delivery up of all the impugned finished and unfinished materials bearing the impugned and violative trade mark L’OREAL or any other word/mark which may be identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s said trade mark/trade name L’OREAL including its blocks, labels, display boards, sign boards, trade literatures and goods etc. to the plaintiff for the purposes of destruction and erasure.

(c) for a money decree for grant of damages of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakh only) from and against the defendants, jointly and severally to the plaintiff.

(d) for an order for cost of proceedings.

2. Summons in the suit were issued to the defendants on 7th January, 2009 and an ex-parte interim order was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants from using trade mark ‘L’OREAL PARIS’. Defendant No. 1 entered appearance on 13th February, 2009. Since Defendant No. 2 could not be served, he was directed to be served through publication vide order dated 5th February, 2010. Defendant no. 2 entered appearance on 27th October, 2010. However, defendant no. 2 failed to file written statement, thus, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 5th September, 2011.

3. Vide order dated 5th December, 2011, following issues were settled:

(i) Whether the suit has been filed by a competent person? OPP

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of the trademark ‘L’OREAL’? OPP

(iii) Whether the defendants are guilty of infringing the registered trademark ‘L’OREAL’ of the plaintiff? OPP

(iv) Whether the defendants are passing off their goods as that of plaintiff? OPP

(v) Whether defendant no. 1 has never dealt with the goods of the plaintiff at any point of time? OPD-1

(vi) Whether the defendants are guilty of infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in the trademark ‘L’Oreal’? OPP

(vii) Relief.

4. Defendant no.1 was also proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18th December, 2014. Thus, the plaintiff led its ex-parte evidence.

5. As per the plaint, plaintiff is a company duly incorporated under the laws of France. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture, distribution and sale of a wide range of hair care, skin care, toiletries and beauty products including perfumery preparations, essential oils, cosmetics, preparations for colouring and bleaching the hair, hair dyes and tints, preparations for waving and setting the hair, shampoos, hair sprays, non-medicated preparations for the care and the beauty of the hair and skin, toilet soaps, dentifrices, sun-tan preparations, personal deodorants and other allied/related products.

6. Plaintiff has been using the word/mark ‘L’OREAL’ in stylized, formative and label as a trade mark since about 1910-1915 in relation to the aforesaid goods and business. Plaintiff’s goods under the trademark ‘L’OREAL’ have acquired goodwill and rep