Delhi High Court
M/S Loreal vs Mr. Rajesh Verma & Anr on 13 May, 2011
Author: Manmohan Singh
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ CS (OS) No. 1661/2007
% Judgment decided on: 13th May, 2011
M/S L'OREAL ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr Akshay Srivastava proxy for
Mr S.K. Bansal, Adv.
Versus
MR. RAJESH VERMA & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: NEMO.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants
for permanent injunction restraining the defendants by themselves as also
through their individual proprietors/partners, agents, representatives,
distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and
on their behalf from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying,
advertising or by any other mode or maner dealing in or using the impugned
trade mark L‟OREAL or any other work/mark which may be identical with
and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s trade mark L‟OREAL in relation
to their impugned goods and business of Cosmetics and other related/allied
products and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to infringement,
passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts.
2. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has also filed the interim application
being I.A. No. 10304/2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section
151 CPC for ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing
and passing off its products .
3. The suit and the interim application were listed for the first time
before the Court on 10.09.2007 and after hearing the parties the defendants
were restrained to manufacture, sell or advertise the cosmetic products under
the trademark "L‟OREAL" or any other deceptively similar trademark.
4. Since the defendant No.1 refused to accept the summons/notice, he
was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 14.11.2008. Vide order dated
16.02.2009, the name of defendant No. 2 was struck off from the array of
parties as the defendant No.2 was not existing at the given address.
5. The plaintiff adduced their evidence by way of affidavit of Ms Surbhi
Bansal who is the constituted attorney of the plaintiff company.
6. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is engaged in the business
of manufacture, distribution and sale of a wide range of hair care, skin care,
toiletries and beauty products including perfumery preparations, essential
oils, cosmetics, preparations for colouring and bleaching the heair, hair dyes
and tints, praparations for waving and setting the hair, shampoos, hair
sprays, non-medicated preparations for the care and the beauty of the skin,
toilet soaps, dentifrices, sun-tan preparations, personal deodorants and other
allied/related products. The trade mark L‟OREAL was bona fidely adopted
by the plaintiff in the first decade of 1900 and the plaintiff has been using
the same since 1915. It is registered in India.
7. The plaintiff‟s goods are sold bearing the trade mark L‟OREAL in or
about 130 countries of the world. The specimen of the plaintiff‟s label are
placed on record as Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/3. The details of various trade
marks applications of the plaintiff as published in the respective Trade
Marks Journals are placed on record as Mark D. The details of the
worldwide applictions/pending applications are placed on record as Mark E.
The plaintiff has filed the reports showing the plaintiff‟s sale as Ex. PW-1/4.
The plaintiff has claimed that the said trade mark L‟OREAL has been
advertised in various leading newspapers and magazines in India such as
Cosmopolitan, Star Dust and Filmfare which are exhibited as PW-1/5. The
plaintiff has also produced downloads from its web site to show that the
plaintiff owns, in the international markets including in India, wherein in
addition to the aforesaid, the plaintiff also enjoys trans-border reputations
and users as extending into India. The same are exhibit as Ex. PW-1/6.
8. The allegations against the defendants are that the defendants have
adopted and started using the trade mark L‟OREAL in relation to the
impugned goods and the defendants are also using the word „Paris‟ along
with the impugned trade mark in order to give a false description of its
goods. The specimen of the defendant product is placed on record as PW-
1/7 to PW-1/8.
9. From the statement made in the plaint as well as the material placed
on record, it is clear that the adoption and user of the trade mark L‟OREAL
of the defendant amounts to infringement and passing off of the goods of the
defendant as that of the plaintiff. It is a clear case of triple identity, where
the trade marks of the parties are same, the goods in which the defendant is
dealing is also identical with that of the plaintiff and the market where the
goods are sold is also the same. Therefore, a strong case of infringement of
trade mark has been made out by the plaintiff. The conduct of the
defendants shows that the defendants are also guilty of passing off their
goods as that of the plaintiff‟s goods and the defendants are fradulent and
dishonest with a view to take the advantage and to trade upon the goodwill,
reputation and proprietory rights of the plaintiff. The defendants have not
filed the written statement nor the defendants cross examined the witness of
the plaintiff. In the absence thereof, I am of the view that the plaintiff is
entitled for the decree for permanent injunction as prayed for.
10. For the aforesaid reason, the suit is decreed in terms of para 31(a), (b)
and (c) of the Plaint. Since the plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence in
order to prove the damages as well as the relief of rendition of accounts,
therefore the reliefs claimed in paras (d) and (e) of the Plaint are rejected.
However, the plaintiff would be entitled for costs and counsel fee of
Rs.20,000/-. The decree be drawn accordingly. Pending applications also
stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J
MAY 13, 2011
dp
