$~19

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 22^nd March, 2022

+

CS (COMM) 129/2022 & I.As. 3107-08/2022

MOTHER SPARSH BABY CARE PVT LTD

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Sagar Chandra, Ms. Surya

Rajappan, Advs. (M: 9873595315)

versus

AAYUSH GUPTA & ORS.

..... Defendants

Through:

Mr. Sadapuma Mukherjee & Mr.

Shivkrit Rai, Advocates for D-1 to 3

(M:9999707585)

Ms. Shweta Sahu, Advocate for D-5

(M:7738741586)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

I.A. 3107/2022 (for stay)

2. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction,

restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, dilution, unfair

competition, delivery up, rendition of accounts, damages, and other reliefs in

respect of the trademark ‘PLANT POWERED’.

3. The case of the Plaintiff is that it was incorporated in the year 2016,

and over the years, it has sold various baby care and personal care products

which are natural and eco-friendly, including detergent, lotions, face wash,

face cream, sunscreen face mask etc., under the trademark ‘PLANT

POWERED’. The trademark ‘PLANT POWERED’ was adopted by the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001143

Plaintiff in the year 2019, and has been using the said trademark along with

two

logos being

and

.

Trademark

Application No.4363416 dated 30^th November, 2019 was filed by the

Plaintiff in Class 3, along with the label which was used by the Plaintiff. The

said mark was registered. Apart from the said application, the Plaintiff has

sought registrations by way of other applications in Class 5, which are

currently objected to and are pending examination. The Plaintiff has also

sought registration of the device mark

(‘PLANT

POWERED’).

4. The sales of the Plaintiff’s products since the year 2019 is claimed to

be Rs.5.95 crores, and the promotional expenses are claimed to be over Rs.4

crores. Various products of the Plaintiff have also been duly licenced under

The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

5. The grievance of the Plaintiff, in the present case, is that the

Defendant No.1 – Mr. Aayush Gupta, who is also running two entities which

are known by the names ‘Plant Powered’ and ‘Bo International’, applied for

the registration of the mark

(PLANT POWERED) with a

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001143

flower logo. The said application was filed on 29^th December, 2020 in Class

3 on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. The said mark proceeded for registration

and the Plaintiff has now filed a rectification seeking cancellation of the said

mark.

6. As per the Plaintiff, upon gaining knowledge of the said registration,

the Plaintiff conducted a market survey and found a number of Defendant’s

products on the e-commerce platform www.amazon.in (“Amazon”). The

details of the said products, along with product codes, and Amazon Standard

Identification Number (ASIN) are also set out in the plaint.

7. Mr. Sethi, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff has made the

following submissions:

i. A cease and desist notice was issued by the Plaintiff on 1^st

February, 2022. However, the Defendant did not respond to the

same. Upon receiving the cease and desist notice, the Defendant

wrote a complaint to Amazon, raising a grievance against the

Plaintiff’s products, which resulted in an email being sent to the

Plaintiff on 8^th February, 2022. Subsequent emails were also

received from Amazon, and the Plaintiff’s products were delisted

from Amazon. Thus, the Defendant chose not to reply to the legal

notice, but parallelly, took action against the Plaintiff which had

addressed the legal notice to the Defendant. He submits that this

shows the mala fide and dishonest nature of the Defendant’s

conduct.

ii. The Defendant is also using the name ‘PLANT POWER