Dabur India Limited vs Zee Hygine Products Private ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 4311 Del

19
$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CS(OS) 1444/2015 & IA No.10722/2015

      DABUR INDIA LIMITED                       ..... Plaintiff
                     Through Mr.Hemant Singh, Ms.Mamta Jha
                     Mr.Manish K.Mishra and Mr.Waseem Shuaib
                     Ahmed, Advocates

                        versus

      ZEE HYGINE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED      ..... Defendant
                    Through Mr.N.Mahabir, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                        ORDER

% 27.05.2015

1. Pursuant to the order dated 19.5.2015, on which date, learned

counsel for the defendant had stated that his client is ready and willing

to modify the existing trade dress and packaging of its product being

manufactured and sold under the name, "Cocoplus Amla Hair Tonic" so

that the same is clearly distinguishable from the plaintiff's trade

dress/artistic work in respect of its product being manufactured and

sold under the name, "Dabur Amla Hair Oil", counsel for the defendant

hands over an affidavit dated 27.5.2015, executed by Mr.Pankaj

H.Bhanushali, Director of the defendant company, with a copy to the

other side. The said affidavit is taken on record.

2. As per the said affidavit, the defendant acknowledges the

ownership and proprietorship of the plaintiff in the packaging and

undertakes not to use the said packaging which is similar to the

packaging of the plaintiff's product, `Dabur Amla'. The defendant has

further stated that it does not have any stock of the product, "Coco

Plus Amla" bearing the packaging against which the plaintiff has filed

the present suit and it has undertaken not to use the questioned

packaging of its product, "Cocoplus Amla" in respect whereof the

plaintiff has instituted the present suit.

3. The defendant has also enclosed with the affidavit, a snapshot of

the proposed changed packaging of its product, "Cocoplus Amla",

which counsel for the plaintiff states on instructions is acceptable to

his client, it being distinguishable from the plaintiff's trade

dress/packaging.

4. Counsel for the defendant states that the defendant has no

objection if the suit is decreed in terms of the prayers made in para

29(a), (b) & (c) of the plaint on the condition that the plaintiff be

called upon to give up the relief as prayed for in para 29(e) & (f).

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that in view of the

undertakings given by the defendant in the affidavit dated 27.5.2015,

the plaintiff gives up the relief as prayed for in para 29 (e) & (f) of the

plaint. He however adds that the extract of the Board of Resolution

dated 1.4.2015 enclosed at page 4 of the affidavit dated 27.5.2015 is

a little vague and the defendant be called upon to file an additional

Resolution, authorizing the deponent of the affidavit to file the

undertakings as contained in the said affidavit.

6. Counsel for the defendant states that needful shall be done

within two weeks, with a copy to the other side.

7. While permitting the defendant to file the extract of the Board of

Directors' Resolution as mentioned above within two weeks, with a

copy to the other side, the suit is decreed in terms of the prayers

made in para 29(a) (b) & (c) of the plaint, while leaving the parties to

bear their own expenses.

8. The suit is disposed of, along with pending application.

File be consigned to the record room.

HIMA KOHLI, J MAY 27, 2015 mk/sk