Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. vs R.R. Corporation
2005 Latest Caselaw 1777 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of plaintiffs suit for injunction against infringement of design of the plaintiff and passing of the goods by the defendant as that of plaintiff and for accounts and profits.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit contending, inter alia, that it is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in manufacture, packaging, sale and distribution of consumer goods. The plaintiff claimed that Reckitt Benckiser is an internationally renowned corporation doing business comprising of various consumer products including pharmaceuticals, surface care products, toilet care products, insecticides, foods, etc. The plaintiff asserted that it was incorporated on 5th July, 1951 under the name and style of Reckitt and Coleman of India Limited and pursuant to world wide merger between Reckitt Colman Plc. And Benckiser, a Dutch company, in 1999, it became Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited.

3. The averment of the plaintiff is that it deals in toilet cleaner called HARPIC which is sold in an unique design of the Harpic Power Bottle with an unique and unusual child resistant cap whose design was registered bearing No. 184080 dated 29th November, 2000 in Class 3. The claim of novelty of the plaintiffs bottle in the registration read as under:-

the novelty resides in the shape and configuration of BOTTLE as illustrated.

4. The plaintiff claimed that it also has a design registeration for the child resistant cap bearing design registration No. 176807 dated 1st July, 1998. The plaintiff launched its product applying the unique design in 2001. Plaintiff gave the figures in relations to the product HARPIC sold in bottles featuring the design in the plaint and contended that the design has become exclusively associated with the plaintiff alone.

5. The plaintiff challenged the sale of its products by the defendant under the trade mark MAGIK which is also a toilet cleaner in a bottle which incorporates the design of the plaintiff and thus infringes the copyright in the design subject of design registrations 176807 and 184080. It was asserted that members of trade and public are getting attracted to the product of the defendant by virtue of its bottle design and the defendant are passing off their goods as that of plaintiff on account of virtual identity between the plaintiffs design and the defendants design and thus plaintiff claimed injunction against infringement of its registered design and passing off the goods of by the defendant as that of plaintiff and mandatory injunction against defendants to deliver up all the bottles infringing the designs of the plaintiff and for inspection of account to ascertain the profits made by the defendant by manufacture and sale of its products in the bottles infringing the design of the plaintiff.

6. By a an interim order dated 18th January, 2005, the defendant was restrained from selling or offering for sale its products in a bottle, shape and configuration of which, the plaintiff has obtained a design registration or in the bottles which are imitation of the design of the plaintiff or are deceptively or confusingly similar or are fraudulent or obvious imitation to those of the plaintiff. A Local Commissioner was also appointed to visit the premises of the defendant and cease the offending bottles and release the same on superdari to the defendant. The Local Commissioner pursuant to the order of the Court visited the premises and ceased 640 MAGIK brand bottles containing toilet cleaner and 6 cartons containing 377 empty bottles which were given to the defendant on superdari and superdarinama was executed.

7. Pursuant to the summons served on the defendant, Mr. Rajesh Mehta, Proprietor of the defendant, appeared in the Court on 16th February, 2005 and prayed for time to file the written statement. Thereafter, neither Mr. Mehta appeared in the Court nor any one appeared on behalf of defendant nor filed the written statement resulting into ex parte proceedings against the defendant on 19th May, 2005. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed his evidence on affidavit of Mrs. Payal Chawla Singh, Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff, who deposed that she is the duly authorized signatory on behalf of the plaintiff and conversant with the facts of the case and proved the power of attorney which is marked as PW1/1. A duly notarised copy of power of attorney in favor of Mrs. Payal Chawla Singh was also produced. The attorney of the plaintiff deposed about the registration certificates which were marked as PW1/2 and PW1/3 and certified copies of design registration certificate bearing No. 176807 and 184080 were also produced. The deponent also stated about the renewal certificate of design registration No. 176807 which was marked as PW1/5 and a copy of renewal application was also produced filed for renewal of registered design No. 184080.

8. The constituted attorney of the plaintiff categorically deposed about the similarity between the design of the plaintiffs bottle and that of defendant and also deposed about the various advertisements given regarding the products of the plaintiff in different newspaper and marked them as PW1/7. In the evidence filed on affidavit, the constituted attorney also made statement regarding the amount spent in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 in net revenue, media spends, consumer offer spends and total spends and also about the total number of bottles sold by the plaintiff in those years.

9. The deposition of the constituted attorney of the plaintiff was categorical regarding defendants selling its toilet cleaner in the brand name MAGIK in a bottle which incorporated the design which infringes the copyright in the design subject of a design registration Nos. 176807 and 184080. The constituted attorney of the plaintiff in her written deposition was categorical regarding restraining the defendant from infringing the design of the plaintiff and passing off his goods as that of plaintiff, however, regarding the relief for rendition of account, no specific deposition was made and it was stated that the reliefs as sought by the plaintiff on pages 13 and 14 of the plaint be granted.

10. The averments made by the plaintiff in its plaint and the deposition made on behalf of plaintiff by its constituted attorney have remained un-rebutted as neither the written statement was filed nor any one appeared on behalf of the defendant and deposed in support of defendant nor the witness of the plaintiff was cross-examined resulting into establishment of facts deposed by the plaintiffs constituted attorney.

11. The plaintiff has thus established that it has valid design registration in respect of its unique shape bottle and its cap which is valid and the product applying the design have become exclusively associated with the plaintiff alone. Use of the similar bottles by the defendant attract members of the trade and public to the product of the defendant and in the circumstances, defendant passes of his products as that of plaintiff. Plaintiff has thus established its case for restraint against the defendant from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale his products in the bottle applying the said design and for a mandatory injunction to deliver the offending bottles including unfinished products as well as moulds used for the manufacture of such bottles infringing the plaintiffs registered designs bearing Nos. 176807 and 184080.

12. Considering the entire facts and in totality of circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and defendant is restrained from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale its products in the bottle applying the said registered design bearing Nos. 176807 and 184080 of the plaintiff and he is also restrained from passing off his goods as that of plaintiffs. Decree for mandatory injunction is also granted in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing him to deliver to the plaintiff all bottles and their moulds used for manufacturing such bottles which infringe designs of the plaintiff. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.