O.S.A.(CAD).Nos.98 to 100 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 08.03.2022

Delivered on : 17.03.2022

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

O.S.A.(CAD).Nos.98 to 100 of 2021

and C.M.P.Nos.17120 to 17122 of 2021

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited

having its Registered Office at

Plot No.48, Institutional Area,

Section 32, Haryana – 122 001.

.. Appellants in all 3 O.S.As

Vs.

ITC Limited,

ITC Centre, 4^th Floor,

760, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002

rep by its Constituted Attorney

P.Ramkumar

.. Respondent in all 3 O.S.As

Appeals filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015

against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2021 in O.A.Nos.554 to 556 of

2021 in C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.55 of 2021.

Page 1/95

O.S.A.(CAD).Nos.98 to 100 of 2021

For Appellant

: Mr.Chander Lal, Senior Counsel

(in all 3 O.S.As)

for Mr.R.Saravana Kumar

Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh

Mr.R.Jawahar Lal

Mrs.Nancy Roy

For Respondent

: Dr.Abishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Counsel

(in all 3 O.S.As)

for Mr.Arun C.Mohan

Mr.Jaideep Gupta, Senior Counsel

Mr.C.Mani Shankar, Senior Counsel

Mr.Amit Bhandari

Mr.K.S.Suresh

Mr.Karthik Selvaraj

Ms.Chandini Pradeep Kumar

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

M.DURAISWAMY, J.

Since the facts relating to the filing of the Original Side Appeals are

common, all the three appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

2.The above Original Side Appeals have been filed by the appellant

as against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.10.2021 made in

O.A.Nos.554 to 556 of 2021 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.55 of 2021.

Page 2/95

O.S.A.(CAD).Nos.98 to 100 of 2021

3.The respondent filed a suit in C.S. (Comm. Div.).No.55 of 2021 for

the following reliefs:

(i)permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their

management, members, affiliates, directors, servants, officers,

employees, representatives, agents and all other persons

claiming under them or acting in concert with them or on their

behalf or acting on their instructions from telecasting,

broadcasting, publishing, disseminating or otherwise

communicating to the public in any manner, any advertisement

or any part thereof in any language or any other representation

or in any manner or part thereof in any language to be telecast

or broadcast or communicated to the public or published in any

manner which directly or indirectly or in any manner,

disparages and/or denigrates the plaintiff's NIMYLE branded

goods and/or category of goods to which it belongs;

(ii)permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their

management, members, affiliates, directors, servants, officers,

employees, representatives, agents and all other persons

claiming under them or acting in concert with them or on their

behalf or acting on their instructions from using in relation to

the defendant's goods in any manner by way of advertisement

or any manner whatsoever, the words “NIMYLE” or any other

mark identical and/or deceptively similar thereto that infringes

Page 3/95

O.S.A.(CAD).Nos.98 to 100 of 2021

the plaintiff's registered trademark/label NIMYLE or from

using any other depiction of the product NIMYLE or any trade

dress or distinctive feature thereof;

(iii)an order directing the defendant to deliver up to the

plaintiff for destruction, all master tapes, CDs, DVDs or any

other copies/material containing

the disparaging

advertisements and for other reliefs.

4.In the said suit, the respondent filed an application in O.A.No.554

of 2021 to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondent from

telecasting, broadcasting, publishing, disseminating or otherwise

communicating to the public in any manner, any advertisement or any part

thereof or any other advertisements of a similar nature in any language or

any other representation or in any manner or part thereof or any other

advertisement of a similar nat