The court held that the defendants were guilty of infringement, passing off, and contempt of court. The court awarded damages and injunction to the plaintiff and also held the defendants guilty of contempt of court.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. The Plaintiff-Whatman International Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of U.K. has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, trade-dress, passing off, unfair competition, dilution, etc.

2. The Plaintiff company, which was founded by James Whatman in 1740, is the owner of the mark WHATMAN. The Plaintiff was acquired in February, 2008 by GE Healthcare, a unit of General Electric Company. The Plaintiff is involved in the manufacture and sale of various products including filter paper. The mark WHATMAN is registered in India in 16. Though the name Whatman is a surname, it is claimed that the Plaintiff’s mark, owing to user for more than 250 years, has acquired a secondary meaning in the trade. The Plaintiff uses a distinctive colour combination and script, get-up and layout for its Whatman filter paper, consisting of a white background with a blue script, which is set out herein below:

FILTER PAPERS
FILTERPAPIERE	PAPIERS FILTRES
1
Qualitative
Circles
125mm Ø
Cat No 1001 125
Whatman TM

      3. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff against various Defendants. The exact connection between the various Defendants would be discussed herein below.

4. The broad grievance of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants are manufacturing and selling Whatman filter paper and are also using an identical colour combination for other filter papers sold by them under various trademarks including ‘HIRAL’, ‘ACHME’, ‘LABSMAN’, ‘U-CHEM’ and ‘SUN’.

5. It is the stand of the Plaintiff that the Defendants are habitual infringers, and have a long history of manufacturing and selling counterfeit Whatman filter paper, beginning from 1992, and thereafter in 2005. The Defendants, despite giving undertakings, continued to sell the infringing goods, leading to the Plaintiff filing the present suit. In the present suit, an interim injunction was granted on 23rd May, 2014 and Local Commissioners were appointed to visit the premises of the Defendants in Mumbai, where seizures of infringing products were made. Despite seizures being effected and the interim injunction operating against them, the Defendants continued to sell infringing products. The Plaintiff thereafter filed an FIR No.08/2018 pursuant to which, again, seizures were conducted by the Mumbai police. The Plaintiff, thus, seeks a permanent injunction and damages.

6. The relationship between the various Defendants is described below.

7. Mr. Paresh Mehta-Defendant No.1 runs a firm by the name of Hiral International. Mr. Mohit Mehta-Defendant No.3 is the son of Mr. Paresh Mehta. Mr. Bharat Patel-Defendant No.2 is the brother in law of Mr. Paresh Mehta. Mr. Rajesh Patel-Defendant No.5 is the brother of Mr. Bharat Patel and is hence related to Mr. Paresh Mehta. Defendant No.4-Mr. Jatin Parekh is also a relative of Mr. Paresh Mehta. M/s. Shri Maruti Chem Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.-Defendant No.7 is promoted by Mr. Paresh Mehta’s wife Mrs. Jagruti P. Mehta and his son Mr. Mohit Mehta. The premises of M/s. Shri Maruti Chem Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. is owned by Mr. Paresh Mehta. Sanghvi Scientific Corporation-Defendant No.8 is the proprietary concern of Mr. Ketan Ramniklal Sanghvi. It purchased filter papers from M/s. M. K. Corporation, which is a firm run by Mr. Rajesh Patel-Defendant No.5. Mr. Jatin Parekh-Defendant No.4 has two firms by the name Nimisha Trading Company and Vidhi Traders. Defendant No.6-Wilson, trading as Delcia Printers, does printing jobs.

8. Thus, all the Defendants are related with each other except Defendant no.6-the printer.

9. When the suit was filed, Local Commissioners were appointed and in the course of execution of commissions seizures were made by the Local Commissioners.

Local Commissioners’ Reports

10. One Commissioner visited the pre