25 May 2022 8:27 AM GMT
In the case of competing trademarks of a cosmetics range, the Delhi High Court awarded damages of Rs. 10 lakh to M/s Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Looking at the similarity of the defendant's product to the Blue Heaven range, Justice Pratibha M. Singh remarked,"...this is not a case of innocent adoption, and the Court cannot encourage such dishonest conduct on behalf of the Defendant....
In the case of competing trademarks of a cosmetics range, the Delhi High Court awarded damages of Rs. 10 lakh to M/s Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Looking at the similarity of the defendant's product to the Blue Heaven range, Justice Pratibha M. Singh remarked,
"...this is not a case of innocent adoption, and the Court cannot encourage such dishonest conduct on behalf of the Defendant. Thus, taking a reasonable assessment of the products which may have been sold by the Defendant, the present suit is decreed for Rs.10 lakhs as damages. In addition, Rs.2 lakhs is awarded as costs."
A suit was filed by M/s Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademark, trade dress, copyright, writing style, color combination, label, packaging, passing off goods, delivery up, retention of account of profit along with further damages.
The plaintiff has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of cosmetics and other allied goods under the trademark BLUE HEAVEN since 1972.
Earlier, in this case, an injunction order was granted restraining the defendants from using the trademark and aligned styles that directly or indirectly infringe the plaintiff's registered trademark.
The Court pursued the competing products and held that the defendant's products have virtually identical packaging to that of the plaintiff. It was observed that the defendant had copied the various elements, including the letter styling, color scheme, the placement of the multiple features, the color combination of the packaging, etc. It also uses various devices and descriptive material on its product, identical to Plaintiff.
Upon a perusal of the physical products, the Court held that Defendant's product is nothing but a counterfeit of Plaintiff's product. Observing that though the mark 'CANDY' is being used in place of the mark 'BLUE HEAVEN,' the Court opined that the same is not sufficient to distinguish the two competing products. Considering that the products are eyeliners and are used by the consumers on their eyes, the Court noted that the standard of quality expected is relatively high, and counterfeits/ knock-offs cannot be encouraged.
The Court decreed the suit granting them relief of permanent injunction as saught. Noting that the defendants have manufactured and sold counterfeit products and refused to appear before the Court despite several services, the Court directed for payment of damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lakh.
Case Status: M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd v. Shivani Cosmetics
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 491
Click Here To Download The Order
Read The Order