Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

1. The Plaintiffs, owners of the trademarks " " and " ", seek redress against the sale of counterfeit products utilizing identical packaging and bearing their trademark by the Defendants. Despite being served with summons in the suit and being restrained by an interim order, the Defendants have failed to contest the proceedings. Consequently, their defence has been closed, leading to ex-parte proceedings. This matter is now before the Court for final disposal.
7. In June 2019, Plaintiffs learnt of online sale of skincare products bearing the Bio-oil trademark and packed in an identical trade dress. Investigations conducted by the Plaintiffs on certain samples revealed counterfeiting of their products. They specifically identified Defendant No. 1, trading as M/s Maahi Enterprises, as a participant in the import and wholesale supply of counterfeit cosmetics, including those replicating the Plaintiffs' skin oil sold under the Bio-oil trademark. The impugned products bear virtually no difference from the Plaintiffs', except printing of the word "BAHUBALI" on the rim of the infringing goods. Further, lab analysis reports (annexed with the plaint) obtained by the Plaintiffs confirm the counterfeit nature of the Defendant No. 1's products. Hence, the Plaintiffs initiated the instant suit.
9. During the execution of the Commission on 17th August, 2019, Defendant No. 1 disclosed that he neither manufactured nor imported the counterfeit products; instead, he procured them from dealers located in Musafirkhana, Manish Market, Mumbai. Following these initial findings, the Plaintiffs commissioned an investigation in Mumbai, leading to the identification of Defendants No. 2, 3, and 4 as importers and sellers of counterfeit "BIO-OIL" / " " products, who allegedly also supplied the infringing products to Defendant No. 1.
16. As noted above, the Defendants have refrained from contesting the case. Due to the absence of any specific denials, the allegations of trademark infringement and passing off, in conjunction with the supportive evidence, fall within the ambit of deemed admissions of all facts mentioned in the plaint.2 Though the Court has the discretion to require further proof, the Plaintiff has, through the documents presented on record, satisfied the test required to prove infringement. The reports submitted by the Local Commissioners, which can be read into evidence,3 provide unassailable substantiation implicating Defendants No. 1, 4, and 5 in the direct sale of counterfeit goods bearing the Plaintiffs' registered Bio-oil trademark. Further bolstering their case, an investigation commissioned by the Plaintiffs resulted in the procurement of sample products from Defendants No. 2 and 3, which were subsequently confirmed as counterfeit by laboratory analysis. The Plaintiffs have also presented the affidavit of the investigator, Mr. Amarjeet Choudhary, of 09th January, 2020, and the accompanying laboratory report. Therefore, the Court deems it appropriate to dispense with Refer: Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396.