Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. No written-statement is filed on behalf of the defendant. In the reply to the application filed by the defendant, it was stated that the plaintiffs do not possess any exclusive rights in the trademark UNIVERSAL. The plaintiffs have not produced any supporting documents to show that plaintiffs are registered proprietors of UNIVERSAL. The plaintiffs have relied upon several registrations for UNIVERSAL formative marks, however, the said registrations are only referred to as 'UNIVERSAL family series' marks by the plaintiffs.

18. It is stated that the registration certificates and official extracts furnished by the plaintiffs in relation to the UNIVERSAL formative marks evidently establish that the plaintiffs have 'disclaimed' any exclusive right to the word UNIVERSAL, particularly in reference to Registration Nos. 879887 [UNIVERSAL DERMACEUTICALS], 879889 [UNIVERSAL SKINCEUTICALS], 1356776 [Universal ECOCAPS], 837377 [UNIVERSAL SEACOD] and 1356167 [Universal CHEWELS], whereby it is stated that the plaintiffs have 'agreed' to the said disclaimer condition. In view of the agreed disclaimer condition, it is adequately substantiated that the plaintiffs possess no exclusive rights over the word UNIVERSAL and cannot therefore, enforce any rights over the same, much-less restrain the bonafide use of UNIVERSAL logo by the defendant. It is further stated that the plaintiffs, by suppressing the material fact of disclaimer, have tried to overreach the due process of this Court in an attempt to obtain ad-interim injunction against the defendant.

19. It is stated that the plaintiffs have made misleading averments in the suit regarding long and continuous use of the trade mark UNIVERSAL and its formative marks since 1971 who have also failed to prove any subsisting or valid copyright in the PRIMOSA trade dress as an artistic work, of which they allege to be the rightful owners. The PRIMOSA trade dress is claimed to have been created by an independent agency known by the name of A.V.Graphics, at the instance of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have failed to produce the details of the author unless the same has been created in the course of employment of the author as a contract of service. The plaintiffs, on the contrary, refer to A.V.Graphics as an independent contractor, who would be deemed to be the first owner of the alleged copyright in the trade dress, if any, unless proved otherwise by way of a written contract of assignment/transfer. The plaintiffs have not only failed to provide any document which shows that the alleged trade dress was created by A.V.Graphics but they have also failed to prove their averments qua ownership of alleged copyright in the said trade dress in the absence of any valid assignment in favour of the plaintiffs by A.V.Graphics.

20. It is stated that the plaintiff No.2 has evidently assigned all title, rights and interests together with goodwill, if any, in the UNIVERSAL formative marks to plaintiff No.1 and while admitting to this fact, the plaintiffs have also filed the Deed of Assignment dated 3rd November, 2011 executed between plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. In view thereof, plaintiff No.2 may be deemed to be the subsequent proprietor of the alleged UNIVERSAL formative marks, for the purpose of using the same on the plaintiffs' products, packaging and trade dress from the year 2011. However, a review of the copies of the plaintiff's packaging and products, as filed herein by the plaintiffs, reveals that the same date back to the year 2010. It is further stated that the plaintiffs have, with a malafide to mislead this Court, filed copies of packaging of products manufactured by plaintiff No.2 prior to the assignment of the alleged UNIVERSAL formative marks to plaintiff No.1.