MARICO LIMITED Vs. HIND COSMETICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction, account of profits, infringement of trademarks under Sections 29, 134, 135 of the Trademarks Act and for passing of and damages. Plaintiff is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.

(2.) Summons were issued in the suit and notice in the application. While issuing summons, this court had restrained defendants from using "MANJAL" or any other similar name as a trademark in relation to the same or similar goods and also to offer for sale such goods bearing the same kind of packaging or design which is deceptively similar so as to cause confusion in the minds of the general public. A local commissioner was also appointed to enter the premises of the defendant, to take charge, possession and control of the impugned goods bearing the trademark, "MANJAL" or any other mark similar to plaintiff's product. The local commissioner visited the premises of the defendant, seized the goods and handed over the goods to the defendant on Superdari. After service the defendant entered appearance, however, no written statement was filed neither defendant was represented by any counsel, on the subsequent dates. Accordingly, defendant was proceeded ex parte on 14.01.2009.

(3.) The plaintiff has filed ex parte evidence of Mr.Agnimitra Sinha, the Head-Legal of the plaintiff (PW-1). In the affidavit the witness has deposed that the suit was signed and verified by one Mr.Amit Rai, who was working with the plaintiff as the legal manager. He confirmed the signatures on the plaint and supporting affidavit as those of Mr.Agnimitra Sinha.