IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Colorbar Cosmetics Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Faces Cosmetics India Private Limited - Respondent
CS(Comm) 228 of 2022
Decided On : 11-05-2022
Trademark Infringement - VELVET MATTE - [Trade Mark Act, 1999, Section 28] - The court discussed the protection of registered trademarks, the estoppel of claiming a mark as generic or descriptive after applying for its registration, and the balance of convenience in granting an ad interim injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff claimed to have adopted the mark 'VELVET MATTE' for cosmetics and was the registered proprietor of the mark. The Defendant used the identical mark for similar products and refused to comply with the Plaintiff's cease and desist notice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Defendants' change of stand and attempt to resile from their previous willingness to give up the mark 'VELVET MATTE' indicated a mere intention to gain time and avoid injunction.
Issues: The issues involved the protection of registered trademarks, the Defendants' attempt to claim the mark as generic or descriptive, and the balance of convenience in granting an ad interim injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Plaintiff made out a prima facie case for an ad interim injunction, and the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiff. It also emphasized the exclusive right of a registered trademark proprietor and the estoppel of claiming a mark as generic or descriptive after applying for its registration.
Final Decision: The Defendants were restrained from using the mark 'VELVET MATTE' or any deceptively similar mark, and were required to take down the listings of the impugned products on e-commerce platforms. The case was listed for further proceedings.
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 before Court on 19th September, 2022.
I.A.5591/2022 (u/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
8. A new counsel has been engaged by the Defendants. Mr. Siddharth Yadav, ld. Counsel for the Defendants, under instructions by Mr. Rahul Das - Director of Defendant No.1 Company, submits that the Defendants are no longer willing to give up the mark 'VELVET MATTE'.
9. On the last date of hearing i.e., 12th April, 2022, the following order was passed by this Court:
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. Mr. Pravin Anand, Id. Counsel appearing for Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 submits that the Defendants are willing to give up the mark VELVET MATTE.
4. Accordingly, since this is a fresh suit, let the parties file a comprehensive application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC recording the undertakings on behalf of the Defendants so that the matter can be finally disposed of.
5. List on 11th May, 2022.
10. It is clear from the above order that, on the said date, the Defendants had instructed their counsels that they were willing to give up the mark 'VELVET MATTE', and the matter was accordingly adjourned to enable the parties to file a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. Today, there has been a change of counsels, as also, a change of stand.
11. The case of the Plaintiff is that it adopted the mark 'VELVET MATTE' in respect of cosmetics being, inter alia, lipstick, lip gloss, liquid premakeup base, lip color, lip liner, in the year 2009 as a sub-brand/mark under the umbrella brand/ house mark 'COLORBAR'. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark 'VELVET MATTE' bearing Registration No.3370299 in Class 3. The said mark was applied on 22nd September, 2016 and the user claim is of 12th August, 2009 onwards. Various variants of the mark have also been used by the Plaintiff. The sales of the products sold under the brand/mark'VELVET MATTE' are stated to be more than Rs.687 lakhs for the previous year 2020-2021. The Plaintiff has also promoted this mark on social media and other websites, and the promotional expenses in respect of the same is to the tune of Rs.1,496 lakhs for the year 2021-2022.
12. The Defendant No.2 is a Canadian company which is also engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling cosmetic products. It uses the identical mark 'VELVET MATTE' in respect of an identical class of products i.e., lip gloss, lipsticks, and other cosmetics. Upon acquiring knowledge of the Defendants' use of the mark 'VELVET MATTE', the Plaintiff had issued a cease and desist notice to the Defendant on 16th November, 2021. Vide Reply dated 9th December, 2021, the Defendants did not agree to comply with the requisition of the Plaintiff, and argued that the mark 'VELVET MATTE' is common to trade and descriptive, as also, that there are several distinguishing factors be
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.