Deliberate copying and imitation of a trademark, trade dress, and color scheme can warrant the grant of a permanent injunction and the award of damages and costs to the aggrieved party.

ORDER

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral). - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademark, trade dress, copyright, writing style, colour combination, label, packaging, passing off goods, delivery up, rendition of accounts of profits along with further damages.

3. The Plaintiff - M/s. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of cosmetics and other allied goods. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant has infringed the rights of the Plaintiff in the registered marks 'BLUE HEAVEN'/

and 'BLUE HEAVEN GET BOLD' (word as well as formative marks). The Plaintiff adopted the mark 'BLUE HEAVEN' in the year 1972 and has been continuously carrying out trade under the said mark. The Plaintiff further adopted the distinctive mark 'BLUE HEAVEN GET BOLD' (word/formative marks) in the year 2020.

4. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted, restraining the Defendant, vide order dated 23rd December, 2021 in the following terms:

'20. In the opinion of the court, upon an evaluation of the Plaintiff's trademark / label / product with the Defendant's product is it prima facie evident that the Defendant copied not only the trademark but also the trade dress / copyright / writing style / colour combination / label /packaging / overall get up of the Plaintiff's mark. The balance of convenience also lies in its favour, and irreparable loss is likely be caused in case an injunction is not granted.

21. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, Defendants, their directors, successors, franchisees, licensees, distributors, representatives, assignees, agents and all others in active concert / participation with them or on their behalf are restrained from using the trade dress / copyright / writing style/ colour &

22. Let the provisions under Order XXXIX Rule 3 be complied with within a period of one week from today.

23. Counsel for the Plaintiff very fairly states that it has no objection with the Defendant/Respondent's use of its own mark. Accordingly, it is clarified that the Defendants are free to use the mark 'CANDY/

24. List before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on 11th April, 2022.

25. List before the Roster Bench on 18th May, 2022.

5. None appears for the Defendant, despite repeated service being effected. A perusal of the affidavits of service dated 15th February, 2022 and placed on record by the ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff shows that the notice and summons have been served upon the Defendant repeatedly through speed post. Service has also been effected upon the Defendant through email.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff further submits that, in fact, the Plaintiff has received a letter from the Defendant - M/s. Shivani Cosmetics, wherein the Defendant has stated as under:

'I/we must confess we were unaware of your copyright, and we appreciate you brought the matter to our attention. In this respect, we are willing to inform you that we are making an offer to stop this box immediately. We will make sure to remove all the boxes and material of this respective product.

It was sheer case of ignorance. In future if you find any product in this design by our firm. We should be liable for such guilty. '

The letter which has been received by the Plaintiff from the Defendant appears to have the signatures of one Mr. Vinod Monga who is the partner of the Defendant - M/s. Shivani Cosmetics.

7. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff also submits that the address of the Defendant which has been mentioned in the memo of parties is the same as the address where the Defendant is presently residing and the said address appears on the Defendant's products as well.

8. Considering the above facts, this Court is convinced that service has been effected upon the Defendant.

9. This Court has also perused the competing products of the Plaintiff and the Defendant which have been handed over to the C