Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Organo Gold Holdings Limited vs Origano Gold Private Limited, Through ... on 26 August, 2022

Author: Navin Chawla

Bench: Navin Chawla

                    $~19
                    *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                    +    CS(COMM) 584/2022
                         ORGANO GOLD HOLDINGS LIMITED            ..... Plaintiff
                                       Through: Mr.Pravin Anand, Mr.Saif Khan,
                                                Mr.Shobhit Agarwal, Ms.Swati Jain,
                                                Advs. (M-8955308121)

                                                 versus

                             ORIGANO GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS
                             DIRECTORS & ORS.                   ..... Defendants
                                          Through: Nemo.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
                                           ORDER

% 26.08.2022 I.A. 13544/2022 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking leave to file additional documents, which are not in the power, possession, control, or custody of the plaintiff at the moment.

3. The plaintiff may file the additional documents strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law.

4. The application stands disposed of.

CS(COMM) 584/2022

5. Let the Plaint be registered as a suit.

6. Issue summons to the defendants, to be served through all permitted modes, including electronically, returnable on 12th January, 2023.

7. The summons to the defendants shall indicate that the written statement(s) to the plaint shall be positively filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the summons. Along with the written statement(s), the defendants shall also file the affidavit(s) of admission/denial of documents of the plaintiff, without which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.

8. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file the replication(s) within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication(s), if any, filed by the plaintiff, the affidavit(s) of admission/denial of documents of the defendants be filed by the plaintiff, without which the replication(s) 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.

9. Issue notice. Notice to be served on the defendants through all permitted modes, including electronically, returnable on 12th January, 2023.

10. Reply be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

11. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff adopted the mark 'ORGANO GOLD' and 'OG' for premium everyday products such as coffee, tea, nutraceuticals and personal care items in the year 2008. It is also a registered proprietor of the label marks in India under the trade mark registration nos. 2439945 and 2439946 in Classes 30 and 32. The said labels are reproduced herein below:

12. The plaintiff also holds registration in its mark in various countries across the globe. The plaintiff claims transborder reputation of its marks in India.

13. The plaintiff avers that the defendant no.1 is a company incorporated in October, 2018. It is only in the month of July, 2022 that the plaintiff was alerted about multiple cosmetic products available under identical and deceptively similar marks like, ORGANO GOLD Beard Oil, ORGANO GOLD Hair Oil & Serum, ORGANO GOLD Face Serum & Facial Oil, ORGANO GOLD Face Mask, ORGANO GOLD Hair Wax & Hair Cream and other cosmetic products. The impugned goods use the identical ORGANO GOLD marks of sold over various e-commerce platforms including www.amazon.in, www.flipkart.in, www.ideakarl.com , www.ebay.com and online trade directories such as www.exportersindia.com.

14. The plaintiff has depicted similarity between the labels of the plaintiff and the defendants as under:

15. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, perused the plaint and the documents filed therewith, I am of opinion that plaintiff has been able to make out a good prima facie case in it favour. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:29.08.2022 18:09:44 against the defendants. The plaintiff and the general public are likely to suffer irreparable injury in case an ad interim injunction, as prayed for, is not granted. The mark depicted by the defendants is almost identical to that of the plaintiff's. The goods in questions are also similar. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark and is therefore, statutorily entitled to protection thereof.

16. Accordingly, an ex parte ad interim injunction in terms of prayer made in paragraph 12 of the application is granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, till further orders.

17. Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be made within a period of three days from today.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J AUGUST 26, 2022 RN Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:29.08.2022 18:09:44