IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
M/s Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Midie Cosmetics - Respondent
CS (Comm) 477/2021 & I.As. 12711/2021, 16540/2021
Decided On : 11-04-2022
Trademark Infringement - Cosmetic Products - The court confirmed the interim injunction restraining the Defendant from infringement of the Plaintiff's trademark and trade dress. The Defendant's products were found to be complete counterfeits of the Plaintiff's products, with almost identical marks, colour combination, label, and even the same barcode. The court also noted that the Defendant's products did not comply with the requirements of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and therefore, the sale and manufacture of the impugned products were contrary to the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff, a cosmetic products company, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and other reliefs against the Defendant for trademark infringement and passing off of goods. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was selling products that were replicas of the Plaintiff's label, trademark, trade dress, and packaging.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the interim injunction and disposed of the applications seeking interim injunction and vacation of injunction. The court also directed the Defendants to bring their documents on record and scheduled the matter for case management.
Issues: Trademark infringement, passing off of goods, compliance with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Ratio Decidendi: The Defendant's products were found to be complete counterfeits of the Plaintiff's products, and the sale and manufacture of the impugned products were contrary to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Final Decision: The interim injunction restraining the Defendant from infringement of the Plaintiff's trademark and trade dress was confirmed, and the applications were disposed of. The matter was scheduled for case management.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral). - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CS(COMM) 477/2021 & IA. 12711/2021 (for interim injunction) & IA. 16540/2021 (u/O XXXIX R 4 CPC)
2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringement of its trademark/trade dress/copyright/writing style/ writing style/colour combination/label/packaging/ and reliefs for passing off goods, delivery upon, rendition of accounts of profits along with further damages, relating to the mark 'BLUE HEAVEN GET BOLD' and its formative marks. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and trading in a range of cosmetic products. The Plaintiff is the registered owner of the word mark 'BLUE HEAVEN \ its formative marks as well as the following marks which were adopted by it in 1972-
3. The Plaintiff is using the mark 'BLUE HE A VEN' in a distinctive logo form in blue colour, and various variants thereof, for the last several years. The mark 'BLUE HEAVEN' is also registered/pending registration in various foreign countries such as China, West Indies, Israel, Nigeria, Malaysia, United Kingdom, Yemen, UAE, etc. In 2020, the Plaintiff is stated to have adopted the mark 'BLUE HEAVEN GET BOLD (word/formative marks)' in a distinctive label/packaging/trade dress, as under:
4. The sales figures of the Plaintiff for the year 2019-2020 was to the tune of approximately Rs.135 crores. In the year 2020-2021, the sales figures of the Petitioner were approximately Rs.145 crores, till the time of filing of the suit in September, 2021. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants are selling products under replicas of the Plaintiffs label/trademark/trade dress/copyright/packaging/etc. The Defendants also hold a trademark registration for , bearing TM No. 3388032 in Class 3.
5. Today, IA. 12711/2021, which is the application seeking interim injunction is listed along with IA. 16540/2021, which is an application for vacation of injunction. However, an adjournment is sought on behalf of the Defendant.
6. It is seen from the record and the physical products which have been produced before this Court today, that this is a case of complete counterfeiting which has been undertaken by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs and Defendants' products are reproduced as under:
7. A perusal of the above as also the physical products, shows that the marks are almost identical, the colour combination is identical, the label is identical, in fact, every feature of the Plaintiffs product has been imitated by the Defendants. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff in fact, also submits that the bar code of the Defendant's impugned product is the same as the barcode of the Plaintiffs products.
8. This Court also noted that pursuant to the execution of the local commission, the Local Commissioner's report dated 26th October, 2021 has been placed on record. The Local Commissioner has seized more than 2,300 infringing products which are inventoried and are in the custody of the Defendants.
9. Moreover, it is noticed from the packaging of the Defendants that the same does not have any MRP, neither the manufacturing and the marketing date, or the address from where it was manufactured. The only information on the packaging is the phrase "Made in PRC". Considering the fact that cosmetics are personal care products which are used on skin, such sale of the products can also not be permitted. Section 9C and 9D of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 {hereinafter "DCA") read with Rule 34 of the Cosmetics Rules, 2020, clearly mandates that the various particulars such as date of manufacture, date of expiry, name and exact address/pin code of manufacturer, name of importer, batch no., etc. have to be mentioned on the label of any cosmetic product. Relevantly, Section 9C of the DCA reads as under:
"9C. Misbranded cosmetics.-For the purposes of this Chapter, a cosmetic shall be deemed to be misbranded-
(a) if it contains a col
The court applied the Parle principle for comparison of competing marks and found that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark, leading to infringement and passing off.
Unauthorized sale of products bearing registered marks constitutes infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act, 1999, leading to the grant of a permanent injunction and award of costs to th....
Plaintiff entitled to a permanent injunction against the Defendants for trademark infringement and passing off due to the similarity in marks and packaging.
The court applied the summary judgment procedure in commercial disputes to ensure timely resolution and emphasized the need for a realistic prospect of success in defending the claim.
The court established that the trademark `LIMCEE` is protected against imitation by `LICMEE`, highlighting the importance of protecting goodwill and enforcing trademark rights.
Deceptive similarity between trademarks and packaging can lead to a finding of trademark infringement under the Indian Trademarks Act, 1999, Section 29.
Summary judgment can be granted in commercial disputes when the defendant lacks real prospects of successfully defending the claim.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the grant of permanent injunction and award of damages in a trademark infringement case.
The exclusive rights of a trademark holder, along with copyright registration, can justify the grant of a permanent injunction and withdrawal of trademark applications in cases of infringement.
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.