Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., opined that the products involved in the present case were cosmetics, and the use of identical artwork and packaging was likely to create deception amongst the consumers that defendants’ products also emanated from that of plaintiff. Thus, the Court restrained defendants and anyone acting for and/or on their behalf from using, manufacturing, offering for sale, the cosmetic products under the mark ‘NAMO NAVKAR’, which were imitative of plaintiff’s ‘BLUE HEAVEN’ products and packaging.
Background
Plaintiff’s ‘BLUE HEAVEN’ mark was an established brand since 1972 in India and overseas in respect of cosmetic products included in Classes 3 and 35 under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Plaintiff had protected its rights in its packaging/label etc., by seeking registration of its trade mark/trade-dress/colour combination and copyright registration.
Plaintiff submitted that it had adopted extremely distinctive packaging for various products including Eye Liner, Kajal, Mascara, and other cosmetic products which were used regularly, and the packaging had several distinctive elements including the white background, stylized writing, and other creative elements in the packaging. It was also submitted that the colour combination and the writing style of various descriptive matters and of distinctive matters was also unique.
Plaintiff submitted that Defendant 1, Anish Jain trading as Navkar Cosmo and Defendant 2, Atinder Kumar Jain were manufacturing and selling cosmetics under the mark ‘NAMO NAVKAR’ which had identical packaging to that of plaintiff’s packaging. It was submitted that, in respect of the cosmetic products i.e., Eyeliner, Mascara and Kajal, defendants had adopted similar expressions by using words ‘GET BOLD’ which was changed to ‘NEW BOLD’ and including the writing style which was completely copied. Further, the artwork used for packaging the kajal was also fully copied.
|
Plaintiff’s trade mark/product/packaging/label |
Defendants trade mark/product/packaging/label |
||
|
Eyeliner/Mascara |
Kajal |
Eyeliner/Mascara |
Kajal |
|
|
|
|
|
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that defendants had copied the exact packaging and the artwork, and their product artwork did not even bear the expiry date and they had even copied the descriptive matter from plaintiff’s artwork.
The Court opined that since the products involved were cosmetics, the use of such identical artwork and packaging was likely to create deception amongst the consumers that defendants’ products also emanated from that of plaintiff. Defendants’ use of a similar mark/packaging in similar combinations not only raised concerns about potential confusion but also suggested an attempt to free ride on plaintiff’s established reputation.
The Court held that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ad interim injunction and considering the products in question were cosmetic products, the balance of convenience was also clearly in plaintiff’s favour. Further, irreparable injury would be caused not just to plaintiff, but to public at large as well, in case products with deceptively similar packaging as that of plaintiff were allowed to continue. Therefore, the Court held that plaintiff had made out a case for the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against defendants.
Thus, the Court restrained defendants and anyone acting for and/or on their behalf from using, manufacturing, offering for sale, the cosmetic products under the mark ‘NAMO NAVKAR’, which were imitative of plaintiff’s ‘Blue Heaven’ products and packaging.
The matter would next be listed on 15-05-2024.
[Blue Heaven Cosmetics (P) Ltd. v. Anish Jain, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8509, Order dated 20-12-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Rishab Srivastva, Sanjay Aggarwal, Yasheswini Sharma, Sahil Gupta, Advocates
Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999 HERE
