Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Colorbar Cosmetics Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Faces Cosmetics India Private Limited – Respondent
ORDER
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CS(COMM) 228/2022
2. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
3. Issue summons to the Defendants through all modes upon filing of Process Fee.
4. The summons to the Defendants shall indicate that a written statement to the plaint shall be positively filed within 30 days from date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, the Defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
5. Liberty is given to the Plaintiff to file a replication within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication, if any, filed by the Plaintiff, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the Defendants, be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the replication shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.
6. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 20th July, 2022. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.
7. List befo
The exclusive right of a registered trademark proprietor and the estoppel of claiming a mark as generic or descriptive after applying for its registration.
The court held that the registered trademark owner is entitled to protection against any use of the mark that could infringe upon their legal rights, regardless of previous non-enforcement.
Ex-parte ad-interim injunction vacated for suppression of material facts in trademark infringement suit; plaintiff must disclose fully prior ownership, adverse orders, relationships with clean hands;....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a fresh cause of action does not justify filing a new suit when the matter is part-heard before another court. The judgment also highlighted t....
Prior use of trademarks and established sales figures can justify injunctive relief to prevent consumer confusion and protect intellectual property rights.
A plaintiff cannot file multiple suits for the same cause of action concurrently in different jurisdictions; it constitutes forum shopping and is impermissible under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of well-established trademarks and the grant of ad-interim injunction against infringement on online platforms.
Trademark registered users have rights against similar marks when prior use and reputation are established, and deliberate infringement can lead to damages awarded.
The appellant's prior use of the trade mark 'Shriphal' and the effect of non-renewal of trade mark registration were central to the court's decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
