JUDGMENT :

P. NAVEEN RAO, J.

1. It is apt to begin this judgment with the often quoted statement by Joseph Grynbaum. He said and quite rightly, ‘an ounce of mediation is worth a pound of arbitration and a ton of litigation’. Joseph Grynbaum specializes in mediating complex multi-party commercial disputes.

2. Heard learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Ram Kumar for Sri P.Satya Venkateswara Rao for the appellant and the learned counsel Sri Hemanth Singh appearing for Sri M.Mallikarjun Reddy for the respondent. Parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. Plaintiff and the respondent are the Companies registered under the Companies Act, 2013. According to plaintiff, it is a century old business house engaged in business of marketing and/or manufacturing of diverse goods and services including packaged Foods and Beverages etc. It claims to be one of India’s foremost Private Sector Company having total income of about Rs. 62,336 crores in the financial year 2021-22 with market capitalization of about Rs. 3,08,882 crores as on 31.03.2022. It is rated amongst India’s 50 biggest Non-financial companies and ranked amongst the top 5 of India’s Most valuable companies for the years 2014 to 2019 by Business Today. It is also adjudged to be one of the world’s top 250 most regarded companies of 2019 by Forbes Magazine. It claims to enjoy enviable market position in foods business driven by renowned brads including ‘AASHIRVAAD salt’. Defendant is also involved in various consumer products under the brand name ‘TATA’. Defendant is also involved in manufacturing and selling of salt with the brand name ‘Shuddh by TATA salt’.

4. According to the plaintiff, plaintiff is aggrieved against the defendant about its adoption, use and launch in December, 2022 of a trade dress which is a colourable and slavish imitation of ‘AASHIRVAAD salt’ trade dress of the plaintiff. The adoption and use by the defendant of the new ‘TATA SHUDDH salt’ trade dress for sale of salt is dishonest and motivated to trade upon the goodwill and reputation associated with plaintiff’s ‘AASHIRVAAD salt’. Plaintiff alleges that there is a deliberate attempt to not only copy the overall colour combination, but also the overall get-up and arrangement of features. The plaintiff alleges that impugned packaging/trade dress by the defendant can have no possible justification for adoption of several features in combination from the plaintiff’s ‘AASHIRVAAD salt’ packaging and get-up. Plaintiff alleges that the ‘Shuddh TATA Salt’ packaging trade dress is imitation of ‘AASHIRVAAD salt trade dress’ of plaintiff.

5. Plaintiff filed C.O.S.No. 5 of 2023 in Principal Special Court in the cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Hyderabad, under Section 26 read with Section 20, Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and under Sections 29 and 135 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 to restrain infringement of trade mark registration Nos.3335001 and 3335002, passing of, disparagement, rendition of accounts of profits/ damages, delivery etc.

6. Plaintiff prayed to grant several reliefs, more particularly, decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, by itself and/or through its directors, group companies, associates, divisions, assignees in business, licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors and dealers from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising in any manner including on the internet, directly or indirectly dealing in salt or any other product under the impugned packaging and/or any other packaging/trade dress that may be deceptively similar, colourable imitation and/or substantial reproduction of the plaintiff’s ‘AASHIRVAAD SALT’ trade dress amounting to infringement of plaintiff’s registered trade mark nos.3335001 and 3335002 in clause-30 as enunciated in the plaint; a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant in any manner likely to cause confusion amounting to passing off and unfair competitio