Delhi High Court
Tata Chemicals Limited vs Rajinder Kumar on 4 December, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 4th December 2019
+ CS(COMM) 569/2019
TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Represented by: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Mr.
Pratyush Rao and Ms. Rajnandini
Mahajan, Advocates.
versus
RAJINDER KUMAR ..... Defendant
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. Summons in the present suit were issued vide order dated 11th
October 2019. None appeared on behalf of the defendant. Defendant is thus
proceeded ex-parte.
2. By the present suit the plaintiff, inter alia, prays for a decree of
permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their assignees in business,
licensees, franchisee, distributors and dealers from manufacturing, selling,
dealing in the impugned TATA SALT Art work/ Packaging or any other art
work/ packaging as may be a colorable imitation or substantial reproduction
of TATA SALT Art work packaging registered under no. A-120055/2017
dated 11thSeptember 2017 amounting to infringement of copyright of the
plaintiffs, leading to unfair competition/ passing off of defendant's goods as
those of the plaintiff's besides delivery up of impugned TATA SALT
packaging, dies, machinery to an authorized presentative of plaintiff for
destructionand damages to the tune of ₹ 2,00,01,000/-.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is the manufacturer of salt and its
product is sold in gunny bags with the words "A TATA PRODUCT"
inscribed thereon represented with a diamond device in addition to other
features.In the year 1955-1956, the plaintiff started producing TATA
vacuum salt followed by the production of TATA pure salt inthe year 1958-
1959 and TATA iodized salt in the year 1983-1984, and the same were
packed in poly packs and gunny bags. Further, the plaintiff submits that the
trademark "TATA SALT" is extensively being used since many decades
which provedistinctive uses of the plaintiff's goods and has also acquired
valuable common law rights therein.
4. The TATA salt label is artistically and stylistically represented on the
poly packs and pouches and the plaintiff is the owner and registered
proprietor of the copyright therein. The TATA SALT mark,designed by
Elephant Design Pvt. Ltd., bears a unique orange and white colour
background, get-up, lay-out, placement of features and trade dress. The said
mark is written in a distinctive font against a device of circle of dark brown
colour in the center of the said artistic work with "iodine guarantee" written
below as shown hereunder:
5. In June 2012 the plaintiff was the market leader in packaged salts in
India as per the audit of AC Neilsen. It has also won accolades as India's
most trusted food brand for many years. Further, in the year 2007-2008 it
was given the status of "Business Superbrand" by Superbrands India. It was
also conferred the "Super brand" status for TATA SALT in the year 2009.
6. Plaintiff has used the trademark "TATA SALT" for many decades
and the label bearing the artistic work is being used since the year 2015. The
sales turnover in the year 2017-2018 for the said mark amounts to more than
₹13,000 crores. Plaintiff has also spent massive amount on advertisements,
publicity and sale promotion in respect of the said mark and due to the
superior quality and high efficacy of the goods, the same has become
popular and its features are commonly known to the people in trade and
consumers.The product of the plaintiff has acquired valuable goodwill in the
trademark TATA SALT and its artistic depiction.
7. Grievance of the plaintiff against the defendant is that while carrying
out random checks in the markets, its representative came across one
Rajinder Kumar, defendant herein, who was indulging in manufacturing,
distributing and supplying the counterfeit TATA SALT packaging material
at Bawana Industrial Area in Delhi. The defendant is neither a manufacturer
nor a distributor of the plaintiff nor even the part of its supply chain. The
counterfeit packaging is a slavish imitation and blatant copy of the plaintiff's
TATA SALT pouch packaging which would create ambiguity/ deception in
the minds of the consumer causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
8. A police complaint was filed by the plaintiff through its authorized
representative with the DCP (Outer North District), New Delhi on 5 th
October 2019 and same was forwarded to ACP/DIU (Outer North District)
on 7th October 2019. Thereafter, the ACP communicated to the plaintiff that
he cannot proceed with the raid as the premises of the defendant was locked
and the provisions of the Copyright Act do not permit the police to break
open the locks in order to conduct such raids.
9. Local Commissioner was appointed in the present matter by this
Court who submitted its report. On inspection, the Local Commissioner
found sheets of Auto Boss Tubes, Modi Auto Tubes and Liberty Ice Cream.
Further, the defendant did not have any books of accounts or any formal
inventory stock. On inquiry by the Local Commissioner, the defendant
stated that he did not have any knowledge of TATA products and does not
deal with them in any manner.
10. Though the Local Commissioner could not find any infringing
packaging product, however plaintiff has placed on record material to show
that the defendant is indulging in counterfeiting the packaging material of
the plaintiff's product resulting in sale of salt in the market not produced by
plaintiff but being sold as plaintiff's product. The use of such counterfeit
packaging by the defendant is a colorable and substantial reproduction of the
plaintiff's TATA SALT packaging constituting infringement of plaintiff's
copyright in the said art work. Being an edible product, quality is of utmost
importance and counterfeit salt would have an adverse effect on the health
of the public.
11. Plaintiff further submits that the TATA SALT packaging constitutes
"original artistic work" within the ambit of Sections2(c) and 13(1) of the
Copyright Act. The plaintiff being the first owner has exclusive right to use
in the said artistic work in any material form as per Section 17(a) to 17(c) of
the Copyright Act. The plaintiff also has an exclusive right to use its
packaging/ trade dress in any material form as perSection 14 of the
Copyright Act, 1957.
12. From the pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint as also the documents
filed with the plaint along with the necessary certificate, the plaintiff has
clearly made out a case for grant of injunction in terms of prayer (a) and (b)
as the defendant is violating the rights of the plaintiff in its trademark as
well as copyright.
13.Plaintiff does not press the prayers (c), (d) and (e). Hence no decree in
terms of prayer (c), (d) and (e) can be passed.
14. Suit is accordingly decreed in terms of prayer (a) and (b) of para 24 of
the plaint in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
I.A. 14066/2019 (u/O XXXIX R 1&2 CPC by P)
Application is disposed of as infructuous.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 04, 2019
'mv'
