Point of Law: Merely riding on strength of his trade mark registration, is indulging in conduct which is not transparent.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff - Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP against the four Defendants, being Defendant No.1 - P. Singh, Defendant No.2 - Sanjivan Anusandhan Pvt. Ltd., Defendant No.3 - Harsheen Sales, and Defendant No.4 - India Best Shop. The Plaintiff seeks permanent injunction, passing off, rendition of account, damages and other reliefs.

3. The Plaintiff has been engaged in the manufacture and sale of an Ayurvedic joint pain relief oil since the year 2009, under the mark ‘SAPTARISHI SANDHI SUDHA’. It is claimed that the mark ‘SANDHI SUDHA’, and the house mark ‘SAPTARISHI’, was coined by the Plaintiff in the year 2008. The mark ‘SANDHI SUDHA’ has been in use by the Plaintiff since the year 2009, along with the house mark ‘SAPTARISHI’. The Plaintiff also claims to be the registered proprietor of the copyright in the packaging of the product branded under the mark ‘SAPTARISHI SANDHI SUDHA’. The ‘SANDHI SUDHA’ product of the Plaintiff is stated to have achieved substantial sales and goodwill, and the Plaintiff has a large network of distributors in India for the said product. The sales figures of the ‘SANDHI SUDHA’ product of the Plaintiff, as set out in the Plaint, was more than Rs.1 crore for the financial year 2017-2018. In addition, the advertisement expenses of the Plaintiff in respect of its ‘SANDHI SUDHA’ product, as set out in the Plaint, was over Rs.53 lakhs for the financial year 2017-2018. Extensive publicity has been given to the ‘SANDHI SUDHA’ product on various television channels, as also, through the Plaintiff’s websites, being www.indiyaa.in, www.sandhisudha.com, and www.sandhisudha-plus.com.

4. The packaging of ‘SANDHI SUDHA’ was also registered under the Copyright Act. The Plaintiff has applied for the registration of the mark ‘SANDHI SUDHA’, as also, its variants. The details of the said trademark applications of the Plaintiff have been set out in the Plaint, and are extracted below:

5. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that, sometime in March, 2021, the Plaintiff acquired knowledge through the e-commerce platform ‘www.snapdeal.com’ that the products under the mark ‘SANDHI SUDHA’ were being suspended from sales on its platform due to some legal issues. It was then that the Plaintiff realized that the Defendants had raised an objection in respect of the Plaintiff’s products being sold on the said e-commerce platform. The Plaintiff made enquiries which revealed that the Defendant No. 1, which was also operating in the name of Defendant No. 4, was engaged in the manufacture of infringing products under the mark ‘SANDHI SUDHA’, and was supplying the same to Defendant No.2. As per the Plaint, the allegations were that the Defendants were jointly and severally engaged in the manufacture and sales of products bearing the mark ‘SANDHI SUDHA’. The competing products of the Plaintiff and the Defendants are depicted below:

6. The present suit was listed for the first time on 9th August, 2021. On the said date, this Court has considered the matter and granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction, in the following terms:

“17. In view of the a