Earlier user till the day is entitled for interim injunction for infringement of copy rights - Or.39, rule 1 & 2 filed by Plaintiff and also filed by Defendant Or.39, rule 4 vacation of injunction order - Infringement of copy rights - The plaintiff company through its predecessor “First Aryco India Ltd.” had adopted a trade mark “PREMIER” on 10.01.1997 for manufacturing and marketing of a wide range of tissue paper products namely Tissues, Tissue Paper, Facial Tissues, Hanky Packs, Kitchen Towels, Toilet Tissues, Jumbo Rolls, Pop Up Napkins, Specialty Napkins. (Cocktail, Luncheon, Dinner), Serviettes, C-Fold Hand Towels, Napkins, Pop U Dispensers, Soap Dispensers etc. It is further averred that sometime in the first week June, 2011 the plaintiff came to know that the defendants are engaged in unauthorized manufacturing, packing and marketing of tissue papers under the trademark “PREMIUM” in packing/boxes which are deceptively similar to the trademark “PREMIER” and “PREMIER SPECIAL TISSUE BOX” the artwork, layout, pattern, get up, fonts, design placement and colour combination of the defendants‟ boxes is also deceptively similar to the plaintiffs‟ boxes. According to the plaintiff, its investigation revealed that the said infringing tissue boxes of the defendant are being sold in various shops and by roadside vendors in Delhi as well as other parts of the country. The defendants have challenged the validity of documents filed by plaintiff by stating that these cannot be looked into. But, this Court is of the view that apart from the documents challenged, there are large number of other documents available on record which are cogent and clear evidence of prior user i.e. from the year 1998. 43. In view of the above, it appears from the record that two set of packaging are almost similar. Both marks, PREMIER and PREMIUM are deceptively similar. The defendants could not have designed their packaging without placing the packaging of the plaintiff. Prima facie, it is clear that it is a case of violation of vested rights of the plaintiff and pirator thereof cannot become rightful owner in any manner. Thus, the plaintiff has made out a strong case of injunction. 44. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has been able to make a strong prima facie case for infringement of trade mark, copyright and passing off. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Incase the defendants/counter claimant is not stopped from using the mark and trade dress in the similar packaging, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, plaintiff‟s application, being I.A. No.10846/2011 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, is allowed. The defendants, their dealers, retailers, servants, agents or any one acting for and on their behalf, are restrained from using the trade mark PREMIUM and/or any other trade mark, which is deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff‟s registered trade mark PREMIER as well as similar packaging/trade dress amounting to infringement of copyright and passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff in respect of tissues of all kinds, or any other allied and cognate goods. It is clarified that the finding arrived by this Court about the defendants‟ user is tentative and prima facie view which shall have no bearing when the matter would be considered after the trial on merit. 2015 Delhi(2012)msklawreports

Earlier user till the day is entitled for interim injunction for infringement of copy rights - Or.39, rule 1 & 2 filed by Plaintiff and also filed by Defendant Or.39, rule 4 vacation of injunction order - Infringement of copy rights - The plaintiff company through its predecessor “First Aryco India Ltd.” had adopted a trade mark “PREMIER” on 10.01.1997 for manufacturing and marketing of a wide range of tissue paper products namely Tissues, Tissue Paper, Facial Tissues, Hanky Packs, Kitchen Towels, Toilet Tissues, Jumbo Rolls, Pop Up Napkins, Specialty Napkins. (Cocktail, Luncheon, Dinner), Serviettes, C-Fold Hand Towels, Napkins, Pop U Dispensers, Soap Dispensers etc. It is further averred that sometime in the first week June, 2011 the plaintiff came to know that the defendants are engaged in unauthorized manufacturing, packing and marketing of tissue papers under the trademark “PREMIUM” in packing/boxes which are deceptively similar to the trademark “PREMIER” and “PREMIER SPECIAL TISSUE BOX” the artwork, layout, pattern, get up, fonts, design placement and colour combination of the defendants‟ boxes is also deceptively similar to the plaintiffs‟ boxes. According to the plaintiff, its investigation revealed that the said infringing tissue boxes of the defendant are being sold in various shops and by roadside vendors in Delhi as well as other parts of the country. The defendants have challenged the validity of documents filed by plaintiff by stating that these cannot be looked into. But, this Court is of the view that apart from the documents challenged, there are large number of other documents available on record which are cogent and clear evidence of prior user i.e. from the year 1998. 43. In view of the above, it appears from the record that two set of packaging are almost similar. Both marks, PREMIER and PREMIUM are deceptively similar. The defendants could not have designed their packaging without placing the packaging of the plaintiff. Prima facie, it is clear that it is a case of violation of vested rights of the plaintiff and pirator thereof cannot become rightful owner in any manner. Thus, the plaintiff has made out a strong case of injunction. 44. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has been able to make a strong prima facie case for infringement of trade mark, copyright and passing off. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Incase the defendants/counter claimant is not stopped from using the mark and trade dress in the similar packaging, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, plaintiff‟s application, being I.A. No.10846/2011 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, is allowed. The defendants, their dealers, retailers, servants, agents or any one acting for and on their behalf, are restrained from using the trade mark PREMIUM and/or any other trade mark, which is deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff‟s registered trade mark PREMIER as well as similar packaging/trade dress amounting to infringement of copyright and passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff in respect of tissues of all kinds, or any other allied and cognate goods. It is clarified that the finding arrived by this Court about the defendants‟ user is tentative and prima facie view which shall have no bearing when the matter would be considered after the trial on merit. 2015 Delhi(2012)msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS