HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED Vs. NARESH ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, present application for amendment has been necessitated in view of the findings of the Local Commissioners in their reports.

(2.) IN the application it has been stated that when the Local Commissioners, appointed by this Court, visited the defendants' premises, they not only seized huge quantity of infringing goods forming subject matter of the present suit, but also found various other products infringing the product containers and packaging design of the plaintiffs, namely, Lifebuoy and Vaseline.

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid judgment reveals that the same has not taken into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, (2006) 4 SCC 385 wherein it has been held as under:-