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

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more