Delhi High Court: In a recent case a major international cosmetic brand, namely, Loreal had filed a suit for permanent injunction on account of trade mark infringement against the defendants who were selling counterfeit products in the name of the said brand, on their internet website While recognising that the plaintiff had built a globally valuable trade mark and acquired immense goodwill, the Court has passed a restraining order against the defendants restraining them specifically from using, manufacturing, marketing, purveying, supplying, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying and advertising the said trade mark on the online market place through their website or through any other mode.

In the instant case the globally renowned cosmetic brand, Loreal had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant from selling counterfeit products of the said brand over the internet. On account of the alleged trade mark infringement the plaintiff prayed for passing off, delivery up and rendition of accounts against the defendants. Counsel for the plaintiff S. K. Bansal submitted that plaintiff’s trade mark is registered inall major countries of the world and has a globally valuable trade mark with an enormous goodwill and reputation. It was also submitted that the goods and products being sold on the alleged internet website were purchased and sent for verification and were found to be counterfeit.

Taking note of the submissions, the Court viewed that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the LOREAL AND LOREAL formative trade marks  and is established in France. It has been using the said trade mark since 1910 and is not only registered in India but in all other major countries as well. It was further concluded that the balance of convenience being in favour of the plaintiff, the instant case is fit for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction. Holding, that if ex parte ad interim injunction is not granted the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss, the Court has passed the restraining order till 15-12-2014, against the defendants as well as their directors, principal officers, partners, distributors, stockists etc. The Court has also directed that the provisions under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be complied with, within four days of the date of passing of this order. Loreal v. Brandworld,  ordered on 14-10-2014

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.