LAWS(MPH)-1957-3-3

BENIPRASAD AGARWAL Vs. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD

Decided On March 14, 1957
BENIPRASAD AGARWAL Appellant
V/S
HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by one Beniprasad Agarwal who trades in the name and style of "bajoria Soap Works", at Sindi Bazar, Kharsia, in the Raigarh district. The appeal is directed against the order granting a temporary injunction in a suit filed by the respondent, Lever Brothers (India), Limited, Bombay, in an action for infringement of the registered trade mark of the respondent Company. There is also an application made for correcting the name of the respondent-Company into "hindustan Lever, Limited, Bombay", which is not opposed. The respondent-Company have also cross-objected and asked for the grant of a temporary injunction against certain other alleged infringements of the registered trade mark. This order shall dispose of all these matters.

(2.) AS regards the application for the correction of the name of the respondent-Company, no objection was raised, and I allow that application.

(3.) THE facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff in the -suit. Lever Brothers (India), Ltd. , are the manufacturers of detergents, and one of their commodities is the well-known Sunlight soap. 'this soap, according to the affidavit filed in the case seeking temporary injunction, has been on the market for nearly sixty years. The label, which is exhibited in the case, is closely associated with this product and has been in existence for almost the same period. The reports of patent cases as also the reports in India disclose numerous attempts at counterfeiting these -labels and also show that attempts have been made from time to time to make colourable imitations of this label. This is partly due to the widespread reputation of the soap which has been in existence for such a long period. The present case is one of the imitations attempted, and the plaintiff's case is that the defendant, now the appellant, has devised a label which infringes the registered label of the respondent-Company and is likely to catch the unwary purchaser into buying the product of the defendant instead of that of the plaintiff.