Prior use of trademarks and established sales figures can justify injunctive relief to prevent consumer confusion and protect intellectual property rights.

ORDER

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

I.A. 9883/2021 (application for exemption from filing dim, illegible, handwritten, vernacular language documents with clearer copies)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The Plaintiff shall file clearer copies of dim, illegible, handwritten, and English translation of documents in vernacular language, at least one week prior to the next date of hearing.

3. The application stands disposed of.

CS(COMM) 366/2021

4. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

5. Upon filing of process fee, issue summons to the Defendants by all permissible modes. Summons shall state that the written statements shall be filed by the Defendants within 30 days from the date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statements, 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.

6. Liberty is given to the Plaintiff to file replications within 15 days of the receipt of the written statements. Along with the replications, if any, filed by the Plaintiff, affidavits of admission/denial of documents of the Defendants, be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the replications 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.

7. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 10th November, 2021. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.

8. List before the Court on 13th December, 2021.

I.A. 9882/2021 (application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 with Section 151 CPC seeking ex-parte and/or ad-interim reliefs/interim injunction)

9. Mr. N. Mahabir, learned counsel for the Plaintiff presses for ex-parte ad-interim orders.

10. The facts as set out in the plaint are as follows: The Plaintiff has filed the suit stating that it adopted the trade mark `SANDHI SUDHA' in 2008 and commenced commercial use in January 2009. The product of the Plaintiff is said to be an Ayurvedic joint pain relief oil and is sold under the mark `SANDHI SUDHA'. In 2011, the Plaintiff is said to have made minor changes in the composition of the oil and has commenced use of the trade mark `SANDHI SUDHA PLUS' as a relatively premium oil. Both the products, namely, `SANDHI SUDHA' and `SANDHI SUDHA PLUS' are being used by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also states that it got copyright registration for the packaging under which `SANDHI SUDHA' is being sold. The Plaintiff's application for registration of the trade mark `SANDHI SUDHA' in Class 5 under application no. 2031828 as on date, is pending. The trade mark has been accepted and published in Trade Marks Journal No. 1508 dated 31st October, 2011. The opposition of a third party is pending.

11. The Plaintiff has also set out in para 10 of the plaint, annual sales figure of its products `SANDHI SUDHA' and `SANDHI SUDHA PLUS' between the period 2010-11 to 2017-18. The highest sales made by it was in the year 2011-12 of Rs.202,28,27287 and Rs.16,77,84,117 by selling `SANDHI SUDHA' and `SANDHI SUDHA PLUS' respectively. It is also claimed that the Plaintiff regularly advertises its products on television and also publishes and promotes them through its websites, http://www.indiyaa.in/, www.sandhisudha.com and www.sandhisudha-plus.com.

12. Mr. Mahabir further submits that on 23rd March, 2021, Plaintiff received an e-mail from the online platform being Snapdeal, informing them that their account for the product under the trademark `SANDHI SUDHA' had b