Persistent counterfeiting despite criminal raids warrants permanent injunction and punitive damages for trademark and copyright infringement.

The Plaintiffs, market leaders in the FMCG sector owning well-known marks such as "Fair & Lovely," "Sunsilk," "Pond’s," and "Ariel", filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods.

Between 2002 and 2003, multiple police raids at the Defendants' premises yielded large quantities of fake products bearing the Plaintiffs' marks and artistic packaging.

Despite criminal actions, the Defendants continued their infringing activities.

An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted on 11.05.2005.

During the proceedings, Defendant No. 2 passed away; Defendants No. 1 and 3 were impleaded as legal heirs but eventually stopped appearing and were proceeded ex-parte.

1. Whether the Plaintiffs are the proprietors of the trademarks and hold the copyright in the artistic works involved in the suit?

2. Whether the Defendants have infringed the trademarks and copyrights of the Plaintiffs and passed off their goods as those of the Plaintiffs?

3. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to damages and interest?

The Court applied the Trade Marks Act, 1999, regarding the statutory right of a registered proprietor to exclusive use and protection against deceptive similarity.

It invoked Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, defining "original artistic work" in relation to product packaging and labels.

The common law principle of Passing Off was applied to prevent the Defendants from riding on the Plaintiffs' goodwill to deceive consumers.

For the quantification of damages in ex-parte commercial matters, the Court relied on the principles in Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd., allowing for broad/notional assessments when exact sales data is unavailable.

The Court relied on Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava, supporting punitive/compensatory damages to discourage habitual infringers.

The Court found that the Plaintiffs proved ownership through valid trademark registrations and long-term use of their "coined and arbitrary" marks.

It determined that the Defendants’ products were "complete reproductions" of the Plaintiffs’ artistic works, distinguishable only by poor printing quality or the use of discarded genuine bottles.

The Court reasoned that the Defendants’ conduct—operating a large-scale counterfeiting hub despite repeated criminal raids—demonstrated mala fides and a persistent intent to deceive unwary consumers.

Because the Defendants failed to lead evidence or cross-examine witnesses, the Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the likelihood of confusion and dilution of brand reputation remained unrebutted.

The Court linked the seized quantities in police memos to a significant loss of legitimate profit and a threat to public health, justifying the award of damages even in the absence of the Defendants.

It granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiffs' marks and copyrights.

The Court ordered Defendant Nos. 1, 3, and 4 to jointly and severally pay ₹2,50,000/- in damages for the loss of reputation and business.

Additionally, the Court awarded 9% interest per annum if the payment is not made within four weeks, and granted the Plaintiffs actual costs under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.