LAKME LIMITED Vs. SUBHASH TRADING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (being I.A.4788/1993) praying for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising directly or indirectly by using the trade mark "LAKSME" or "LIKE ME", the device and the word ' Designer' in relation to the nail enamel and other cosmetic goods or any other mark which is deceptively similar or identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and also passing off their goods as the goods of the plaintiff; and also the application filed by the defendant seeking vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction dated 13.5.1993 (being I.A. 5466/1993) whereby the defendants were restrained from using the trade mark "LAKSME" or "LIKE ME" or the word "designer' or any other mark which may be identical or deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiff "LAKME".

(2.) The plaintiff instituted a suit contending inter alia that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of trade mark " LAKME" under No. 148249 in class 3 in respect of soap, perfumery, cosmetics and toilet preparations. It was stated that the word 'LAKME' is registered under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 as a trade mark for various goods since the year 1951. The plaintiff had also given year-wise turn over for about 7 years for the cosmetic products under the mark 'LAKME' and the advertisement expenses. It was stated that the plaintiff has also been incurring huge expenses in the sale promotion and advertisement in relation to the trademark ' LAKME' on account of which the people in general associate any product or service bearing the word 'Lakme' exclusively with the products of plaintiff. Plaintiff has also been using the mark "Designer" since January, 1988 alongwith a device. In or about 3rd week of January, 1992 it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the defendants No. 1 & 2 had introduced into the market a nail enamel under the trade mark "LAKSME" and Coco Sweety Designer. The defendant No. 3 is the dealer of defendants 1 & 2 who is also selling nail enamel under the trade mark "LIKE ME" and the mark Designer which are identical and/or deceptively sirhilar to the trade mark of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that by use of the trade mark "LAKSME" or "LIKE ME" in respect of the nail enamel the defendants are infringing the trade mark of the plaintiff and also infringing the rights of the plaintiff to their mark Designer. Under the aforesaid circumstances the plaintiff has instituted the present suit in which the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 came to be filed.

(3.) This Court by order dated 13.5.1993 while issuing summons in the suit also issued a temporary ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or advertising enamel nail polish under the trade mark "LAKSME / LIKE ME" and the word 'Designer' or any other mark which may be identical or deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiff "LAKME'.