Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs Arvind & Ors on 11 May, 2016

Author: Harish Tandon

Bench: Harish Tandon

                            GA No. 1382 of 2016
                                   with
                            CS No. 131 of 2016
                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION



                                                           Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
                                                                           Versus
                                                                    Arvind & Ors.


Before:
The Hon'ble Justice HARISH TANDON
Date: 11th May 2016


                                                                       Appearance:
                                              Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Advocate
                                                          Mr. D. Gomes, Advocate
                                                             Mr. A. Deb, Advocate
                                                        for the plaintiff/petitioner

       The Court: The petitioner is a well-known company being the subsidiary

of the Unilever group. It is a registered owner of a trademark "Lakme" and has

assumed a good name, goodwill and reputation in the fast moving consumer

goods sector within and outside the country. It has an extensive network both

for marketing and distribution of the entire range of products manufactured and

marketed inside the country and have nearly a gross average turnover of

Rs.25,000 crores in last three years.

       It is alleged that several persons whose identity could not be disclosed are

actively involved in selling their products with such trademark and the product is

a colourable imitation of the product of the petitioner.

       At the time of moving the injunction application, the petitioner could not

disclose the names of the persons who are selling and marketing their products
                                          2


in such trade name and invited the Court to pass "john doe" order.

Subsequently, the petitioner could disclose the name of four persons in the

supplementary affidavit and leave was granted to implead them as a party in the

proceedings.

       The petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in case of

Tej Television vs. Rajen Mandal reported in (2003) FSR 22 to impress upon the

Court that the international practice of passing a john doe has been applied and

accepted in the judicial system all over the country and prays for appointment of

the Court Commissioner to collect the necessary evidence and take possession of

the infringing goods not only from the disclosed persons but also from others

whose identity could not be ascertained. In the said report the allegation of

violation of the copyright was made by the plaintiff/petitioner therein against

several persons. Some of them could have identified and others could not. The

Court, prima facie, found the violation of a copyright and held that there is no

fetter or impediment upon the Court to pass such an order.

       On bare examination of the original and the counterfeit produced by the

petitioner before this Court there is no hesitation, in my mind, that the

counterfeit product is a colourable imitation of the original both in its get up and

style but also the manner in which the trade mark is depicted therein. The

colours, size and the manner of writing the words are verbatim reproduction of

the original and, therefore, a clear case of infringement of the trademark as well

as copyright are made out.

       There shall be an order in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the notice of

motion.
                                             3


          There shall also be an order in terms of prayer (c) of the notice of motion.

          Ms. Anita Deb, Advocate, Bar Association, Room No. 2, High Court,

Calcutta is appointed as a special officer to enter into the premises not only of

the defendant nos. 1 to 4, but also of the others and shall take possession of the

goods containing the trademark 'Lakme' or 'Lakme nine to five and shall keep the

same at a place to be provided by the plaintiff in its custody until further order.

          The said special officer, if necessary, shall take assistance of the local

police station.    The moment the receiver approaches the concerned officer-in-

charge of the police station, such officer shall render all the assistance in

carrying out the directions passed hereinabove.

          The respondent nos. 1 and 4 and also the other respondents, if they are

found selling the product of the plaintiff, to file the affidavit-in-opposition to the application within six weeks from date. Reply, if any, shall be filed within two weeks thereafter. The matter will appear after eight weeks. The initial remuneration of the special officer is fixed at 2000 GMs.

(HARISH TANDON, J.) R. Bose AR(CR)