Bawa Masala Company vs Dimple Packaging (P)Lt on 4 September, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Bawa Masala Company vs Dimple Packaging (P)Lt on 4 September, 2020

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher

                          $~2
                          *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +     CS(COMM) 363/2020
                                BAWA MASALA COMPANY                               .....Plaintiff
                                                Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhani and Mr. Ashish Singh,
                                                         Advs.
                                                     Versus

                                DIMPLE PACKAGING (P)LT.                                   .....Defendant
                                                Through:     None
                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                                                ORDER

                          %                     04.09.2020
                                          [Physical Court Hearing]

                          I.A. No.7741/2020

1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing original/certified copies of the documents.

2. The application is allowed, subject to the caveat that the plaintiff will produce the original/certified copies of the documents as and when called upon by the Court.

3. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

I.A. No.7740/2020

3. Allowed. The plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents.

4. The additional documents will be filed within 30 days from today. CS(COMM) 363/2020 & I.A. No.7739/2020

5. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the captioned application.

6. Mr. Vidhani says that the plaintiff is the owner of various registered trademarks and device marks carrying the prefix BMC.

7. It is stated that except for one, all device marks are registered in Class

30. One trademark i.e. "BMC Soya Dish" is registered in Class 29.

8. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the fact that the defendant has slavishly Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:05.09.2020 11:06:38 copied its registered trademark as well as its packaging.

9. For this purpose, my attention has been drawn to paragraph 23, the contents of which, inter alia, set out in pages 25 to 27 of the plaint; relevant portions of which are set forth hereafter:

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:05.09.2020 11:06:38 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:05.09.2020 11:06:38 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:05.09.2020 11:06:38

10. Mr. Vidhani says that a perusal of the said contents would show that the defendant is indulging in counterfeiting and, hence, deluding the consumers into believing that its goods have their source in the plaintiff.

11. Mr. Vidhani says that the counterfeiting by the defendant has gone to the extent that even the address of the plaintiff and its domain name appears on defendant's packaging.

12. I have heard Mr. Vidhani, learned counsel for the plaintiff.

13. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Vidhan that, at this stage at least, the plaintiff has established a prima facie case.

13. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff given the period over which the plaintiff and its predecessors -in - interest have been using the registered mark BMC and its variants as also the revenue earned and the advertising expenditure incurred by it.

14. Furthermore, if injunction sought for by the plaintiff is not granted at this stage, not only the plaintiff's statutory and commercial interest will be impacted but the interest of the public will also get affected.

15. In these circumstances, till the next date of hearing, the defendant, its agents, employees, distributors and stockists are restrained from manufacturing, selling, printing, importing, exporting, offering for sale, advertising directly or indirectly and dealing in Spices, Pepper, Chillies, Mustard, Kasoori Methi, Soya, Soya Wadi and other allied and cognate goods under the impugned trademarks/trade packaging/ or any other mark and/or packaging which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark/trade dress/ packaging.

16. The plaintiffs will comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC within five days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:05.09.2020 11:06:38 order.

17. List the matter on 06.11.2020.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

SEPTEMBER 04, 2020 rb Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:05.09.2020 11:06:38

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders