Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Order delivered on: 19 December, 2014
+ CS(OS) 1332/2014, I.A. Nos.8683/2014,
12455/2014 & 21713/2014
MOROCCANOIL ISRAEL LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Pravin Anand, Adv. with
Mr.Aditya Gupta, Adv.
versus
MANOJ KHANNA & ORS ..... Defendants
Through Mr.P.C.Sharma, Adv. for D-1 & 2.
Mr.Rajeev Kumar, Adv. for D-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction
restraining infringement of copyright, passing off, damages and
rendition of accounts etc.
2. Since 2007, the plaintiff has continuously used the trademarks
MOROCCONOIL, “M (MOROCCANOIL Vertical Design)”, and “M
(MOROCCANOIL Horizontal Design)” in relation to oil hair treatment
products worldwide, including India. Plaintiff and its affiliates have
registered or sought numerous registrations of their trademarks
MOROCCANOIL, “M (MOROCCANOIL, Vertical Design),” and “M
(MOROCCANOIL Horizontal Design)” in more than 80 countries of
the world.
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 1 of 10
3. It is averred in the suit that the plaintiff’s MOROCCANOIL hair
treatment products are sold in a packaging having a unique get up,
layout, colour scheme and arrangement of features, comprising of an
overall blue background and featuring an oversized letter ‘M’ in a
distinct logo script in orange font
with the plaintiff’s trade mark/
name MOROCCANOIL inscribed either horizontally or vertically
sideways in prominent lettering. Significantly, the
logo/device
forms an essential feature of the plaintiff’s “ MOROCCANOIL ” series
of products.
The design of the packaging of the plaintiff’s MOROCCANOIL
product constitutes an original artistic work within the meaning of
Section 2 (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
4. The plaintiff claims that the MOROCCANOIL product in the
market is perceived as a very high quality, luxury item.
MOROCCANOIL has generated and owns substantial goodwill in
relation to its products, in particular as the result of its significant
investment in marketing worldwide, valued in the hundreds of millions
of dollars; numerous positive reviews by celebrities and prominent
figures in the world of hair care; and extensive coverage of the
Moroccanoil products in popular and luxury publications all over the
world. In addition, the Moroccanoil word mark and logos enjoy
extensive IP protection in more than 80 territories worldwide.
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 2 of 10
5. In or about the month of March, 2014, the plaintiff came across
the defendant’s advertisement in Bombay Times entitled “The
World’s Best Hair Transplant Clinic” and featuring the defendant’s
hair treatment product in a packaging strikingly similar to the plaintiff’s
present MOROCCANOIL packaging. Thereupon, inquiries were
conducted in the market which revealed that the defendants were
engaged in selling ‘MINOXIDIL’ Hair Gain Solution in a packaging
comprising of an identical get up, layout, colour scheme and
arrangement of features as that of the plaintiff’s MORROCANOIL
products comprising of the overall blue background and featuring the
device. The defendant’s product packaging is reproduced
hereunder :
6. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have adopted an
identical packaging comprising of an identical get up, lay out, colour
scheme and arrangement of features as used by the plaintiffs for
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 3 of 10
identical products. The defendants have adopted the plaintiff’s
device/logo which forms the most distinctive and essential feature of
the plaintiff’s “ MOROCCANOIL ” series of products. According to the
plaintiff, the above acts of the defendants infringe the plaintiff’s
exclusive rights in the trade dress of their product, their copyright in
the artistic work and amount to passing off.
7. The suit as well as the interim applications were listed before
th
Court on 7 May, 2014 when the interim order was passed, the
operative part of the order is reproduced below :
“I.A. No.8683/2014 (under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
1. Issue notice to the defendants, returnable before
Joint Registrar on 3rd July, 2014.
2. This is an application filed by the plaintiff for an ex
parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their
partners or proprietor, servants and agents, from
reproducing, printing or publishing any label or packaging,
including cartons and boxes, which are a colourable
imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiff’s
MOROCCANOIL packaging and from making, selling,
offering for sale, exporting, advertising, and in any manner
direct or indirect using the device/logo or any other device
or logo comprising of the letter M’’ in a logo script, which
is deceptively similar to or a reproduction of the plaintiff’s
logo script and taking any other features of the
plaintiff’s product packaging in any manner in respect of
hair and oil treatment products and doing any other thing,
which may lead to passing off of their products as those of
the plaintiffs.
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 4 of 10
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
plaintiffs that the plaintiff company was incorporated in
2007 and engaged in development, production and
marketing of hair oil treatment products under the
trademark MOROCCANOIL. The plaintiff has established a
strong international presence in the global hair care and oil
treatment industry. Since 2007, the plaintiff has
continuously used the trademarks MOROCCONOIL, “M
(MOROCCANOIL Vertical Design)”, and “M
(MOROCCANOIL Horizontal Design)” in relation to oil hair
treatment products worldwide, including India. The plaintiff
company is the registered proprietor of the trademark
MOROCCANOIL in India under Registration No.1649179.
4. It is further contended that the plaintiff’s
MOROCCANOIL hair treatment products are sold in a
packaging having a unique get up,
layout, colour scheme and arrangement of features,
comprising of an overall blue background and featuring an
oversized letter M? in a distinct logo script in orange font
with the plaintiff’s trademark MOROCCANOIL inscribed
either horizontally or vertically sideways in
prominent lettering. The design of the packaging of the
plaintiff’s MOROCCANOIL product constitutes an original
artistic work within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the
Copyright Act, 1957.
5. Mr.Anand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has
contended that the plaintiff has also widely and extensively
advertised and publicized its products under the trademark
MOROCCANOIL through various modes of electronic and
print media on which substantial expenses have been
incurred by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs authorized
distributors and approved salons alone have right to sell
the MOROCCANOIL products in India, and no third party is
authorised or licensed or has any right to use or exploit the
plaintiffs intellectual property rights in India.
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 5 of 10
6. It is alleged that defendant No.2 company engaged
in the marketing and distribution of Hair Gain Solution
under the mark “MINOXIDIL” featuring the plaintiff’s well-
known ‘M’ logo/device, which is being manufactured by
defendant No.3. Defendant No.1 is the Managing Director
of defendant No.2, who believed to be principal officer
actively running and managing the day to day business of
defendant No.2. In the month of March, 2014, the plaintiffs
came to know about an advertisement in the
newspaper Bombay Times featuring the defendant’s hair
treatment product in a packaging similar to the plaintiff’s
MOROCCANOIL packaging. It is alleged that the
defendants have adopted an identical packaging
comprising of an identical get up, lay out, colour scheme
and arrangement of features as used by the plaintiffs for its
products.
7. The learned counsel has contended that because of
the international fame and distinction of the plaintiff’s
products, the plaintiffs estimate the monetary losses to be
Rs.60,00,000 per annum, whereas the damage to their
goodwill and reputation cannot be assessed in monetary
terms.
8. It is alleged that the defendants are aiming to
mislead consumers and members of the trade into
believing that the products bearing the identical trade
dress/ packaging prominently featuring the ‘M’ logo/device
emanate from or are connected with the plaintiffs and
thereby causing confusion or deception in the course of
trade as to the source or origin of the products. The sub-
standard quality of the defendants’ products is also bound
to cause irreparable harm to the goodwill and reputation to
the plaintiffs’ trademarks or trade names.
9. It is contended that the acts of the defendants not
only amount to infringement of trademark, infringement of
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 6 of 10
copyright, dilution and indulgence in passing off but the
same also amount to unfair competition and trade practice
to injure the plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill.
10. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs. From the visual comparison of the
two products by any unwary consumer, he would be easily
deceived by purchasing the goods manufactured by the
defendants as the goods, which are manufactured by the
plaintiffs. A perusal of the documents relied upon by the
learned counsel also shows that the plaintiffs have been
able to make out a prima facie good case for grant of ex
parte ad interim injunction. The balance of convenience is
also in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff will also suffer an
irreparable loss in case an ex parte ad interim stay is not
granted.
11. Accordingly, the defendants, their partners or
proprietor, servants and agents and any other person
acting on their behalf are restrained
from reproducing, printing or publishing any label or
packaging, including cartons and boxes, which are a
colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the
plaintiff’s MOROCCANOIL packaging and also restrained
from making, selling, offering for sale, exporting,
advertising, and in any manner direct or indirect using the
‘M’ device/logo or any other device or logo comprising of
the letter ‘M’ in a logo script, which is deceptively similar to
or a reproduction of the plaintiff’s ‘M’ logo script and taking
any other features of the plaintiff’s product packaging in
any manner in respect of hair and oil treatment products
and doing any other thing, which may lead to passing
off of their products as those of the plaintiffs.
12. Provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be complied
within two weeks.”
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 7 of 10
8. The Local Commissioners appointed by the said order have
made the inventories of the infringing products of the defendant
Nos.1 and 2. In the written statement filed by said defendants, it has
been admitted that the defendant No.3 is the manufacturer of the
impugned goods.
9. Mr.Pravin Anand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that
as far as the use of trade mark “MINOXIDIL” is concerned, his
client is not claiming any right over the same who are also not
pressing for any relief of damages and costs of the suit. His client is
merely seeking a decree for permanent injunction from using the
distinctive logo ‘M’ and get up, colour combination of lay out of the
carton which are subject matter of infringement of copyright, passing
off and trade mark rights.
10. The counsel for defendant Nos. 1 and 2 has already given an
th
undertaking which has been recorded in order dated 8 December,
2014 not to infringe the plaintiff’s copyright in the artistic work of the
packaging of the plaintiff’s MOROCCANOIL product and not use the
logo or a trade dress which is identical or deceptively similar to
the trade dress of the plaintiff’s MOROCCANOIL product. The
counsel for defendant Nos. 1 and 2, on instructions, confirms that
defendant No. 1 and 2 have already ceased the manufacture and
sale of products with the packaging filed in the present proceedings.
The defendants shall remain bound by this statement made in Court.
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 8 of 10
11. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 undertakes that they are currently not using
and shall not use in future any packaging for their products, the
following features which form part of the plaintiff’s MOROCCANOIL
product :
(i) Prominent and pervasive use of the colours annexed as
Annexure A on their packaging; or
(ii) Use of vertical lettering; or
(iii) Use of the words “Morocco”, “Moroccan”, or any
derivation thereof in any manner whatsoever.
12. The defendants also recognize the validity of the plaintiff’s
rights in the trade dress of the MOROCCANOIL product, the
copyright in the artistic work of the packaging of their
MOROCCANOIL product and shall not oppose, attempt to cancel or
otherwise challenge the plaintiff’s trademark registrations and
applications, both in India and worldwide.
13. As far as defendant No.3 is concerned, counsel submits that
his client has nothing to do with the impugned product and has no
concern with the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The said statement is
apparently incorrect, firstly in the written statement filed by defendant
Nos.1 and 2, it was admitted that the said defendants were getting
manufactured the said goods from the defendant No.2. Secondly,
the packing material seized by the Local Commissioners show the
name of defendant No.3 apparently on the packaging material. At
this stage counsel for the defendant No.3 says that his client has
intention to use the same in future and earlier he had nothing to do
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 9 of 10
with the impugned products. The net result is that the defendant
No.3 is also agreeable not to infringe the logo ‘M’ and the artistic
work which appears on the packaging material of the plaintiffs.
14. Thus, a decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendants in terms of para 24(a) & (b) of
the plaint as this Court felt that no other issue is to be determined on
merit. The rest of the prayers are given up. The same are disposed
of as not pressed.
15. The decree be drawn up accordingly.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 19, 2014
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 10 of 10
th
% Order delivered on: 19 December, 2014
+ CS(OS) 1332/2014, I.A. Nos.8683/2014,
12455/2014 & 21713/2014
MOROCCANOIL ISRAEL LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Pravin Anand, Adv. with
Mr.Aditya Gupta, Adv.
versus
MANOJ KHANNA & ORS ..... Defendants
Through Mr.P.C.Sharma, Adv. for D-1 & 2.
Mr.Rajeev Kumar, Adv. for D-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction
restraining infringement of copyright, passing off, damages and
rendition of accounts etc.
2. Since 2007, the plaintiff has continuously used the trademarks
MOROCCONOIL, “M (MOROCCANOIL Vertical Design)”, and “M
(MOROCCANOIL Horizontal Design)” in relation to oil hair treatment
products worldwide, including India. Plaintiff and its affiliates have
registered or sought numerous registrations of their trademarks
MOROCCANOIL, “M (MOROCCANOIL, Vertical Design),” and “M
(MOROCCANOIL Horizontal Design)” in more than 80 countries of
the world.
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 1 of 10
3. It is averred in the suit that the plaintiff’s MOROCCANOIL hair
treatment products are sold in a packaging having a unique get up,
layout, colour scheme and arrangement of features, comprising of an
overall blue background and featuring an oversized letter ‘M’ in a
distinct logo script in orange font
with the plaintiff’s trade mark/
name MOROCCANOIL inscribed either horizontally or vertically
sideways in prominent lettering. Significantly, the
logo/device
forms an essential feature of the plaintiff’s “ MOROCCANOIL ” series
of products.
The design of the packaging of the plaintiff’s MOROCCANOIL
product constitutes an original artistic work within the meaning of
Section 2 (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
4. The plaintiff claims that the MOROCCANOIL product in the
market is perceived as a very high quality, luxury item.
MOROCCANOIL has generated and owns substantial goodwill in
relation to its products, in particular as the result of its significant
investment in marketing worldwide, valued in the hundreds of millions
of dollars; numerous positive reviews by celebrities and prominent
figures in the world of hair care; and extensive coverage of the
Moroccanoil products in popular and luxury publications all over the
world. In addition, the Moroccanoil word mark and logos enjoy
extensive IP protection in more than 80 territories worldwide.
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 2 of 10
5. In or about the month of March, 2014, the plaintiff came across
the defendant’s advertisement in Bombay Times entitled “The
World’s Best Hair Transplant Clinic” and featuring the defendant’s
hair treatment product in a packaging strikingly similar to the plaintiff’s
present MOROCCANOIL packaging. Thereupon, inquiries were
conducted in the market which revealed that the defendants were
engaged in selling ‘MINOXIDIL’ Hair Gain Solution in a packaging
comprising of an identical get up, layout, colour scheme and
arrangement of features as that of the plaintiff’s MORROCANOIL
products comprising of the overall blue background and featuring the
device. The defendant’s product packaging is reproduced
hereunder :
6. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have adopted an
identical packaging comprising of an identical get up, lay out, colour
scheme and arrangement of features as used by the plaintiffs for
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 3 of 10
identical products. The defendants have adopted the plaintiff’s
device/logo which forms the most distinctive and essential feature of
the plaintiff’s “ MOROCCANOIL ” series of products. According to the
plaintiff, the above acts of the defendants infringe the plaintiff’s
exclusive rights in the trade dress of their product, their copyright in
the artistic work and amount to passing off.
7. The suit as well as the interim applications were listed before
th
Court on 7 May, 2014 when the interim order was passed, the
operative part of the order is reproduced below :
“I.A. No.8683/2014 (under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
1. Issue notice to the defendants, returnable before
Joint Registrar on 3rd July, 2014.
2. This is an application filed by the plaintiff for an ex
parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their
partners or proprietor, servants and agents, from
reproducing, printing or publishing any label or packaging,
including cartons and boxes, which are a colourable
imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiff’s
MOROCCANOIL packaging and from making, selling,
offering for sale, exporting, advertising, and in any manner
direct or indirect using the device/logo or any other device
or logo comprising of the letter M’’ in a logo script, which
is deceptively similar to or a reproduction of the plaintiff’s
logo script and taking any other features of the
plaintiff’s product packaging in any manner in respect of
hair and oil treatment products and doing any other thing,
which may lead to passing off of their products as those of
the plaintiffs.
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 4 of 10
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
plaintiffs that the plaintiff company was incorporated in
2007 and engaged in development, production and
marketing of hair oil treatment products under the
trademark MOROCCANOIL. The plaintiff has established a
strong international presence in the global hair care and oil
treatment industry. Since 2007, the plaintiff has
continuously used the trademarks MOROCCONOIL, “M
(MOROCCANOIL Vertical Design)”, and “M
(MOROCCANOIL Horizontal Design)” in relation to oil hair
treatment products worldwide, including India. The plaintiff
company is the registered proprietor of the trademark
MOROCCANOIL in India under Registration No.1649179.
4. It is further contended that the plaintiff’s
MOROCCANOIL hair treatment products are sold in a
packaging having a unique get up,
layout, colour scheme and arrangement of features,
comprising of an overall blue background and featuring an
oversized letter M? in a distinct logo script in orange font
with the plaintiff’s trademark MOROCCANOIL inscribed
either horizontally or vertically sideways in
prominent lettering. The design of the packaging of the
plaintiff’s MOROCCANOIL product constitutes an original
artistic work within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the
Copyright Act, 1957.
5. Mr.Anand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has
contended that the plaintiff has also widely and extensively
advertised and publicized its products under the trademark
MOROCCANOIL through various modes of electronic and
print media on which substantial expenses have been
incurred by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs authorized
distributors and approved salons alone have right to sell
the MOROCCANOIL products in India, and no third party is
authorised or licensed or has any right to use or exploit the
plaintiffs intellectual property rights in India.
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 5 of 10
6. It is alleged that defendant No.2 company engaged
in the marketing and distribution of Hair Gain Solution
under the mark “MINOXIDIL” featuring the plaintiff’s well-
known ‘M’ logo/device, which is being manufactured by
defendant No.3. Defendant No.1 is the Managing Director
of defendant No.2, who believed to be principal officer
actively running and managing the day to day business of
defendant No.2. In the month of March, 2014, the plaintiffs
came to know about an advertisement in the
newspaper Bombay Times featuring the defendant’s hair
treatment product in a packaging similar to the plaintiff’s
MOROCCANOIL packaging. It is alleged that the
defendants have adopted an identical packaging
comprising of an identical get up, lay out, colour scheme
and arrangement of features as used by the plaintiffs for its
products.
7. The learned counsel has contended that because of
the international fame and distinction of the plaintiff’s
products, the plaintiffs estimate the monetary losses to be
Rs.60,00,000 per annum, whereas the damage to their
goodwill and reputation cannot be assessed in monetary
terms.
8. It is alleged that the defendants are aiming to
mislead consumers and members of the trade into
believing that the products bearing the identical trade
dress/ packaging prominently featuring the ‘M’ logo/device
emanate from or are connected with the plaintiffs and
thereby causing confusion or deception in the course of
trade as to the source or origin of the products. The sub-
standard quality of the defendants’ products is also bound
to cause irreparable harm to the goodwill and reputation to
the plaintiffs’ trademarks or trade names.
9. It is contended that the acts of the defendants not
only amount to infringement of trademark, infringement of
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 6 of 10
copyright, dilution and indulgence in passing off but the
same also amount to unfair competition and trade practice
to injure the plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill.
10. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs. From the visual comparison of the
two products by any unwary consumer, he would be easily
deceived by purchasing the goods manufactured by the
defendants as the goods, which are manufactured by the
plaintiffs. A perusal of the documents relied upon by the
learned counsel also shows that the plaintiffs have been
able to make out a prima facie good case for grant of ex
parte ad interim injunction. The balance of convenience is
also in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff will also suffer an
irreparable loss in case an ex parte ad interim stay is not
granted.
11. Accordingly, the defendants, their partners or
proprietor, servants and agents and any other person
acting on their behalf are restrained
from reproducing, printing or publishing any label or
packaging, including cartons and boxes, which are a
colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the
plaintiff’s MOROCCANOIL packaging and also restrained
from making, selling, offering for sale, exporting,
advertising, and in any manner direct or indirect using the
‘M’ device/logo or any other device or logo comprising of
the letter ‘M’ in a logo script, which is deceptively similar to
or a reproduction of the plaintiff’s ‘M’ logo script and taking
any other features of the plaintiff’s product packaging in
any manner in respect of hair and oil treatment products
and doing any other thing, which may lead to passing
off of their products as those of the plaintiffs.
12. Provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be complied
within two weeks.”
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 7 of 10
8. The Local Commissioners appointed by the said order have
made the inventories of the infringing products of the defendant
Nos.1 and 2. In the written statement filed by said defendants, it has
been admitted that the defendant No.3 is the manufacturer of the
impugned goods.
9. Mr.Pravin Anand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that
as far as the use of trade mark “MINOXIDIL” is concerned, his
client is not claiming any right over the same who are also not
pressing for any relief of damages and costs of the suit. His client is
merely seeking a decree for permanent injunction from using the
distinctive logo ‘M’ and get up, colour combination of lay out of the
carton which are subject matter of infringement of copyright, passing
off and trade mark rights.
10. The counsel for defendant Nos. 1 and 2 has already given an
th
undertaking which has been recorded in order dated 8 December,
2014 not to infringe the plaintiff’s copyright in the artistic work of the
packaging of the plaintiff’s MOROCCANOIL product and not use the
logo or a trade dress which is identical or deceptively similar to
the trade dress of the plaintiff’s MOROCCANOIL product. The
counsel for defendant Nos. 1 and 2, on instructions, confirms that
defendant No. 1 and 2 have already ceased the manufacture and
sale of products with the packaging filed in the present proceedings.
The defendants shall remain bound by this statement made in Court.
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 8 of 10
11. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 undertakes that they are currently not using
and shall not use in future any packaging for their products, the
following features which form part of the plaintiff’s MOROCCANOIL
product :
(i) Prominent and pervasive use of the colours annexed as
Annexure A on their packaging; or
(ii) Use of vertical lettering; or
(iii) Use of the words “Morocco”, “Moroccan”, or any
derivation thereof in any manner whatsoever.
12. The defendants also recognize the validity of the plaintiff’s
rights in the trade dress of the MOROCCANOIL product, the
copyright in the artistic work of the packaging of their
MOROCCANOIL product and shall not oppose, attempt to cancel or
otherwise challenge the plaintiff’s trademark registrations and
applications, both in India and worldwide.
13. As far as defendant No.3 is concerned, counsel submits that
his client has nothing to do with the impugned product and has no
concern with the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The said statement is
apparently incorrect, firstly in the written statement filed by defendant
Nos.1 and 2, it was admitted that the said defendants were getting
manufactured the said goods from the defendant No.2. Secondly,
the packing material seized by the Local Commissioners show the
name of defendant No.3 apparently on the packaging material. At
this stage counsel for the defendant No.3 says that his client has
intention to use the same in future and earlier he had nothing to do
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 9 of 10
with the impugned products. The net result is that the defendant
No.3 is also agreeable not to infringe the logo ‘M’ and the artistic
work which appears on the packaging material of the plaintiffs.
14. Thus, a decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendants in terms of para 24(a) & (b) of
the plaint as this Court felt that no other issue is to be determined on
merit. The rest of the prayers are given up. The same are disposed
of as not pressed.
15. The decree be drawn up accordingly.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 19, 2014
CS(OS) No.1332/2014 Page 10 of 10