Willful breach of injunction on registered artistic work via deceptively similar labels constitutes contempt despite underlying trademark registrations.

The Applicant/Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘NOVA’ and its associated artistic label for hair cream.

In 2010, the Court granted an interim injunction (terms (a) to (c)) restraining the Respondents from using the ‘NOVA’ mark or any deceptively similar mark, and specifically from using the Applicant’s registered artistic work.

In 2013, the Applicant filed a contempt application (Notice of Motion 1269/2016) alleging the use of a ‘NONI’ label comprising identical artistic work.

In February 2025, during a Court Receiver’s execution in another matter, goods with the mark ‘NOVA MINI’ and the ‘NONI’ label were found at Respondent No. 1’s premises.

Respondent No. 3 (son of Respondent No. 1) identified himself as the proprietor.

The Respondents argued that ‘NONI’ was a registered mark excluded from the original suit and that ‘NOVA MINI’ was a mistake by a new employee.

1. Whether Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 are guilty of willful disobedience of the injunction order dated November 24, 2010.

2. Whether the use of the ‘NONI’ label and ‘NOVA MINI’ mark constitutes a breach of the injunction despite the Respondents’ claims of registration and separate identity.

Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, regarding the consequences of disobedience or breach of an injunction.

The correctness or legality of an injunction is irrelevant in contempt proceedings; the order must be obeyed so long as it stands, as established in M/s. Indo-Keniyan Industrial Enterprises v. Metal Forgings (P) Ltd.

The ‘Safe Distance Rule,’ which requires an enjoined infringer to stay well away from the protected mark/artistic work (Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Raghunath Chemicals).

Section 35 of the CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) and Section 151 of the CPC regarding the imposition of costs and inherent powers.

The court found the Respondents’ defense—that the ‘NONI’ mark was not specifically listed in the suit—to be a "red herring" and "dishonest".

The 2010 injunction specifically prohibited use of the artistic work and any deceptively similar mark; a comparison showed the ‘NONI’ label was virtually identical to the Applicant’s registered artistic work.

Respondent No. 1 had previously sought clarification from a Division Bench to exclude ‘NONI’ from the injunction, which was refused, proving the Respondents were fully aware the order applied to that label.

The "mistake by an employee" regarding ‘NOVA MINI’ was dismissed as untenable given the Respondents' history as habitual counterfeiters.

Respondent No. 3 was held complicit as he represented himself as the proprietor and failed to file a reply or deny the allegations.

The court awarded the Applicant legal costs of ₹32,42,868 and exemplary costs of ₹50,00,000 to be paid by Respondent No. 1 within four weeks; failure to comply will result in his defense being struck off under prayer clause (e).

The court granted the application in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), and (d), ordering the attachment of assets and disclosure of all sales accounts for the infringing products.