In a suit for trademark infringement, where the defendant acknowledges the plaintiff's proprietary rights through a settlement or chooses not to contest the suit, the court may grant a permanent injunction restraining further infringement and passing off.

1. This suit is filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs inter alia seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringement of Plaintiffs’ registered trademarks and passing off.

2. As averred in the plaint, Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are part of Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc. an FTSE listed transnational Hygiene and Health Company, leading in the fields of consumer healthcare, hygiene, nutrition and fast-moving consumer goods. Plaintiff No. 1, a Company registered under laws of the United Kingdom is the registered proprietor of trademarks ‘AIR WICK’ and and their formative marks. Plaintiff No. 2 is a Company incorporated under laws of India and is engaged in manufacture, packaging, sale and distribution of various fast-moving consumer goods under popular brands such as ‘Dettol’, ‘Harpic’, ‘Mortein’ etc. It is stated that Plaintiffs adopted the trademark ‘AIR WICK’ in 1943 in United States of America and launched fragrance products under the said mark in India in 2008 and registrations in the mark span over several jurisdictions across the world in different classes such as 03, 04, 05 and 11. Registration of the domain name ‘www.airwick.co.in’ dates back to 16.02.2005 and Plaintiff No. 1’s earliest registration of the mark in India goes back to 06.06.2001. Plaintiffs’ products under the marks ‘AIRWICK’/ ‘AIR WICK’/ are being sold in India at least since 2008 and combined sales figures for the years 2015-2023 are approximately Rs. 462 crores.

3. It is stated that in August, 2023, Plaintiffs learnt that Defendants were manufacturing, displaying, distributing, marketing, selling, labelling, packaging, storing and dealing in as also importing/exporting products under the marks ‘AIRKWICK’ and and Defendant No. 1 had applied for registration of the marks ‘AIRKWICK’ and ‘AIRWOC’, which were virtually identical to Plaintiffs’ registered trademarks. During a search of Trade Marks Register it was also discovered that Defendant No.1 had filed applications for registration of impugned word mark ‘AIRKWICK’ and logo in Class 05, wherein objections were raised by the Trade Marks Registry in the FER citing previous marks including the marks of the Plaintiffs. Being concerned with dishonest adoption of the impugned marks by Defendant No.1, Plaintiffs sent a cease and desist notice dated 18.10.2023 to Defendant No.1 with copy to Defendant No.2, asking them to cease and desist from using the Plaintiffs’ marks in any manner whatsoever, however, there was no response initially. Subsequently, Defendant No.1 requested the Plaintiffs telephonically to grant Defendant No.1 phase-out period of two months to exhaust the existing stock of impugned products, to which the Plaintiffs agreed on the condition that Defendant No.1 will withdraw the applications for registration.

4. It is stated that despite assurances, Defendant No.1 filed two more applications for registration of mark ‘AIRWOC’ in Class 05. A fresh internet check on 12.03.2024 revealed that all impugned listings were intact and Defendant No.1 continued to manufacture the impugned products and had in fact expanded the advertisement and sale of the products through third party online market places such as Amazon, Flipkart, etc. whereafter Plaintiffs filed the present suit. By a detailed order dated 13.05.2024, this Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs restraining the Defendants and anybody acting on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting etc. the impugned products under the impugned marks ‘AIRKWICK’, ‘AIRWOC’ and being identical/deceptively similar to Plaintiffs’ registered ‘AIR WICK’ marks as a part of packaging, art work, get up or in any other manner so as to infringe the Plaint