The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of trademark infringement and passing off, the court may grant a permanent injunction against the infringing party and award actual costs to the successful party in commercial matters.

JUDGMENT

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

2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff-Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, seeking permanent injunction as also reliefs for infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, and account of profits, against the misuse of its trademark `HARPIC', essential features of `HARPIC' labels and the shape of the `HARPIC' bottles, by the Defendant. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff's product is sold under the mark `HARPIC', which is sold in unique blue containers with red caps and red containers with white caps, both with a distinctive label, shape and trade dress. The said trade dress of the two products are depicted hereinbelow:

3. As per the plaint, the Blue and Red `HARPIC' products which are used as toilet cleaners and bathroom cleaners, are products which are market leaders in their respective categories. The Plaintiff's trademark `HARPIC' is stated to have been adopted internationally in 1920 and is registered in over 150 jurisdictions. The trademark `HARPIC' is in use in India applied to a distinctive bottle since 1984. `HARPIC' and its formative marks, its label, device, and bottle shape have also been registered in India as trade marks, in various classes including in Classes 3 and 5. The Blue and Red HARPIC bottles have various distinctive features such as:

i. The shape of the bottles;

ii. The color of the bottles; and

iii. The labels which are affixed thereon.

4. All these elements together constitute distinctive marks as also trade dress of the Plaintif; the same are referred to herein as `Blue HARPIC Bottles' and `Red HARPIC Bottles', for ready reference. The plaint has explained how, since launch, these products have evolved and have undergone some changes. The sale figures of `HARPIC' since 2015 have also been placed on record, which shows that the sales in the year 2019-2020 were more than Rs.900 crores and the advertising expenses for the said years are over Rs.100 crores. The market share of the Plaintiff, as of June 30, 2021, is stated to be 77.2%.

5. Mr. Wadhwa, ld. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff, submits that the Plaintiff has also taken several successful actions protecting these marks, trade dress, and its intellectual property in the `HARPIC' products. The Plaintiff has obtained injunctions against third parties, for instance, in:

Sl. No.	Suit Title	Order	Particulars
1.	Reckitt Benckiser India P. Ltd. v. Surekhaben L. Jain & Ors.	CS(Comm) 122/2019, decided on 31st October, 2019	The Defendant undertook to not use the identical or similar trade dress of HARPIC.
2.	Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd v. M/s. Super Shine Industries	CS(Comm) 265/2020, decided on 21st July, 2020	The Defendant was restrained from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale its products under the trade dress identical to that of the Plaintiff under the mark "HARPIC" & "COLIN".
3.	Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd v. Mr. Alok Jain Trading as M/s. Advance Hygiene Products & Ors.	CS(Comm) 508/2020, decided on 19th November, 2020	The Defendant was restrained from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, advertising, promoting its products under the trade dress identical to that of the Plaintiff under the marks "DETTOL" "HARPIC" "HARPIC TRADE DRESS" "COLIN" and "COLIN TRADE DRESS"

6. The grievance in the present case is that the Defendant has adopted the mark `HAPRIC' in identical Blue and Red containers for toilet cleaners and bathroom cleaners. The said `HAPRIC' products are also being promoted on the internet on the platform of IndiaMart, under the trading style Sharad Graam Udyog. Defendant - Mr. Sharad Jagat Pal Shrivastav is the proprietor of the said entity. The Defendant's HAPRIC products as against the Plaintiff's HARPIC products are depicted below:

7. Vide the previous order dated 29th October, 2021, the Defendants were injuncted in the following terms:

"24. Accordingly, till further orders, defendant is restrained from u