Madras High Court
Mrs.Preeti vs Mr. Vijay Kumar Chopra on 23 June, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
O.A.No.183 of 2025 in
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
O.A.No.183 of 2025 in
C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.57 of 2025
Mrs.Preeti
Sole Proprietrix of M/s.Kadar Impex,
Residing at No.30, 4th Floor, Sukhi Aangan,
Tirupalli Street, near Vinayak Kovil,
Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 001.
Having Office at 2nd Floor, No.1,
Vigneshwara land, Vadaperumbakkam,
Chennai-600 060. ... Applicant No.1/
Plaintiff No.1
Mr.Piyush Jain
Sole Proprietor of M/s.Kosmos Global
No.20, Revanayer Street,
Park Town, Chennai-600 003. ... Applicant No.1 /
Plaintiff No.2
Vs
Mr. Vijay Kumar Chopra,
Sole Proprietor of M/s.Beauty Essentuals,
KVR Swamy Road, Beside ok Stores,
Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh-533 101 ... Respondent No.1 /
Defendant No.1
Cura Skin Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Represented by “Not Known”,
D.No.76/1 and 2, Virugambakkam,
Chennai, Tamil nadu-600 092. ... Respondent No.2/
Defendant No.2
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 08:37:14 pm )
O.A.No.183 of 2025 in
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025
PRAYER: Judge's summons filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules
R/W. Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, prays that
this Court may be pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction on the
following terms:
a) An ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondent's, by itself, its
lawful assignees, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest,
representatives or anyone claiming through or under them from in any
manner infringing the Plaintiff' registered copyright “BEAUTE BLANC”
by manufacturing, marketing, using or in any other manner dealing with
Cosmetics, Skin Care, and Hair Care Preparations or any allied and
cognate products under the artistic work/packaging/ carton of
“NATUALLY” or in any other manner similar and identical to the
Plaintiff's registered copyright “BEAUTE BLANC” pending disposal of
the suit.
b) Pass such further or other reliefs as this Corut may deem fit and
necessary in the circumstances of the case and thereby render justice.
For Applicants/Plaintiffs : M/s.A.Jayesh Kumar Daga
and Pavithra K.
For Respondents/Defendants : Mr.Shravankumar Bansal for
for M/s.C.Daniel, Gladys Daniel,
Somnath De, V.Revathy,
J.Vennilla and G.Shalini
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 08:37:14 pm )
O.A.No.183 of 2025 in
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025
ORDER
This suit was filed seeking relief in respect of alleged infringement
of the plaintiffs' copyright in the artistic work depicted at paragraph 3 of
the affidavit in support of this application and set out below:
2. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have copied the said
artistic work by using the artistic work set out below along with the
plaintiffs' work:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 08:37:14 pm )
O.A.No.183 of 2025 in
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025
The present interlocutory application has been filed seeking interim relief
in the above context.
3. The contentions of learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs
may be summarized as under:
(i) the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of copyright bearing
registration No.A-130483/2019 describing the first plaintiff as the author
of the artistic work. The document specifies the year of publication as
2014. Consequently, the plaintiffs' are entitled to rely on particulars
recorded in the Register of Copyrights as per Section 48 of the
Copyrights Act, 1957 (the Copyrights Act).
(ii) This Court granted an interim injunction by order dated
13.02.2020 in respect of the same artistic work in O.A.Nos.947 to 949 of
2019 in C.S.No.609 of 2019. While granting such order, the contention
that the label was created by a Chinese company (the same defence as
raised herein) was dealt with and rejected.
(iii) The defendants purchased products from the plaintiffs, as
evidenced by invoices raised by the plaintiffs on the defendants.
(iv) The plaintiffs have placed on record multiple invoices issued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 08:37:14 pm )
O.A.No.183 of 2025 in
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025
from August 2018 onwards for sale of products with packaging bearing
the plaintiffs' artistic work.
(v) The plaintiffs have also placed on record Chartered
Accountants' certificates with regard to the turnover from sale of goods
bearing the artistic work.
(vi) The contention of the defendants that third parties have also
used artistic works substantially similar to that of the plaintiffs was
responded to in the reply affidavit by stating that such use is subsequent
to the use by the plaintiffs.
(vii) The defendants have failed to demonstrate that the original
packaging/artistic work was created by a Chinese company.
4. The contentions of learned counsel for the
respondents/defendants may be summarized as under:
(i) The authorship and publication details contained in the
registration certificate are false. The plaintiffs have failed to provide any
evidence that the artistic work was published in the year 2014.
(ii) The plaint does not identify the author of the artistic work.
(iii) The screen shots referred to in paragraph 8 of the counter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 08:37:14 pm )
O.A.No.183 of 2025 in
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025
affidavit disclose that third parties used identical packaging on
14.09.2017 and 29.05.2018.
(iv) The website www.alibaba.com shows an identical packaging
with a space left for affixing the logo of the seller concerned. This is
dealt with at page 15 of the counter affidavit.
(v) The product packaging discloses that the product is not
manufactured by the plaintiffs but by an entity situated in China for
another entity situated in Hong Kong.
(vi) The certificates of the two Chartered Accountants do not
disclose any sales prior to 2017-18. In fact, as regards the first plaintiff,
who is alleged to be the author of the copyright, sales figures have only
been provided from 2021-22.
(vi) The registration of a copyright, unlike the registration of other
intellectual property rights, does not confer any rights on the registrant.
Unlike the registration process under the Trade Marks Act, 1999,
registration is not preceded by an advertisement calling for third party
objections.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 08:37:14 pm )
O.A.No.183 of 2025 in
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025
5. In support of these contentions, learned counsel referred to and
relied upon the following judgments:
(a) Federation of Industries of India & another v. Mr.G.Kesavalu
Naidu @ Kesavan & another, CS(OS) No.596 of 2007, particularly
paragraphs 13 and 24 thereof.
(b) Rediff.Com India Ltd. v. E-Eighteen.Com Ltd.
MANU/DE/2202/2013, particularly paragraph 53 thereof.
(c) Glaxo Orthopedic U.K. Ltd. v. Samrat Pharma,
MANU/DE/0257/1983, particularly paragraphs 14 and 15 thereof.
(d) Camlin Private Limited v. National Pencil Industries, 2001
SCC OnLine Del 1083, particularly paragraph 10 thereof.
(e) Tech Plus Media Private Ltd. v. Jyoti Janda & others, 2014
SCC OnLine Del 1819, particularly paragraph 20 thereof.
(f) M/s.K.B.Hiralal & Sons v. M/s.Kumar Industries & another,
1985 Arbitration Law Reporter 265, particularly paragraphs 9 and 11
thereof.
6. Being an interlocutory application for interim injunction, this
application should be decided on the basis of classical principles in such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 08:37:14 pm )
O.A.No.183 of 2025 in
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025
regard. As regards the existence of a prima facie case, the plaintiffs relied
heavily on Section 48 of the Copyright Act, which is as under:
“48. Register of Copyrights to be prima facie
evidence of particulars entered therein.— The
Register of Copyrights shall be prima facie
evidence of the particulars entered therein and
documents purporting to be copies of any
entries therein, or extracts therefrom, certified
by the Registrar of Copyrights and sealed with
the seal of the Copyright Office shall be
admissible in evidence in all Courts without
further proof or production of the original.”
As is noticeable from the text of Section 48, the Register of Copyrights
qualifies as prima facie evidence of the particulars entered therein. The
entry of particulars in the Register of Copyrights is made after an inquiry
in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 45 thereof. As submitted by learned
counsel for the defendants, it is no doubt true that such inquiry is not
conducted after the relevant work is advertised. The particulars entered in
the Register of Copyrights in this case, includes the title of the work, the
name of the author and the year of publication. To that extent, at this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 08:37:14 pm )
O.A.No.183 of 2025 in
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025
interlocutory stage, the plaintiffs are in a position to rely on those
particulars.
7. It remains to be considered whether the plaintiffs have placed on
record any corroborative evidence with regard to publication in the year
2014. The expression “publication” is defined in Section 3 of the
Copyright Act as making a work available to the public by issue of
copies or by communicating the work to the public. On examining the
documents placed on record by the plaintiffs, it appears that no proof of
publication in the year 2014 has been placed on record.
8. The plaintiff has, however, placed on record multiple invoices
issued either by the first or the second plaintiff, and the earliest invoice is
dated 3rd August 2018. The invoices carry the description of the goods,
but no clear conclusion may be drawn solely on such basis as to whether
the artistic work was depicted on the packaging of the product
concerned. The plaintiffs have also placed on record two certificates from
UK and Co. and Vikas Mishra & Co., Chartered Accountants. The
certificate pertaining to the second plaintiff discloses the turnover from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 08:37:14 pm )
O.A.No.183 of 2025 in
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025
the financial year 2017-18 onwards and the certificate with regard to the
first plaintiff discloses the turnover from the financial year 2021-22
onwards.
9. The defendants have asserted in the counter affidavit that third
parties have used identical packaging in respect of identical products
from 14.09.2017 onwards, and provided prima facie evidence thereof.
While the plaintiffs have responded to these assertions in the
rejoinder/reply by stating that the plaintiffs' creation and use predates
those of the third parties, as noticed above, there is no prima facie
evidence to that effect. The product packaging discloses that the products
are manufactured for a Hong Kong based company by a China based
company.
10. The opposition filed by the plaintiffs to the defendants'
trademark application refers to the defendants' use of the impugned
artistic work. Such opposition has been lodged on 01.08.2024. By
contrast, in the plaint and in the affidavit in support of the interim
application, it is stated that the plaintiffs became aware of the defendants'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 08:37:14 pm )
O.A.No.183 of 2025 in
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025
products in December, 2024. The import registration document placed on
record by the plaintiffs reveals that the defendants were importing
products from the year 2022, albeit the use of the impugned label cannot
be discerned therefrom.
11. Upon considering the aforesaid factors, it cannot be said that
the plaintiffs make out a strong prima facie case. The balance of
convenience is also not in favour of granting an interim injunction. The
defendants shall, however, maintain accounts in relation to sale of
products bearing the impugned artistic work and file such accounts on
quarterly basis before this Court. In my view, this would adequately
balance the equities at this juncture.
12. The interim application is disposed of on these terms without
any order as to costs.
23.06.2025
kal (½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 08:37:14 pm )
O.A.No.183 of 2025 in
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.
kal
O.A.No.183 of 2025 in
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025
23.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 08:37:14 pm )
