In CS(COMM) 702/2021-DEL HC- Delhi HC awards Rs 10 lakh as damages to Blue Heaven Cosmetics in trademark infringement suit, says counterfeits cannot be encouraged Justice Prathiba M. Singh [18-05-2022]

Read Order: M/s BLUE HEAVEN COSMETIC PVT. LTD. Vs. SHIVANI COSMETICS THROUGH ITS PARTNERS VINOD MONGA NISHANT MONGA

LE Correspondent 

New Delhi, May 30, 2022:  Awarding Rs 10 lakh as damages and Rs 2 lakh as costs to Blue Heaven Cosmetics in a trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court has sternly remarked that this is not a case of innocent adoption and such dishonest conduct on behalf of the Defendant should not be encouraged. 

The Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh was considering a suit filed by the plaintiff-Blue Heaven seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of its registered trade mark. Facts for perusal of the present suit were that the Plaintiff- Blue Heaven Cosmetic Pvt. Ltd is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of cosmetics and other allied goods and it was its case that the defendant infringed the rights of the plaintiff in the registered marks “Blue Heaven ” and “Blue Heaven get Bold”. The plaintiff adopted the mark “Blue Heaven” in 1972 and was continuously carrying the trade under the said mark.  Consequently, an ex- parte ad interim injunction was granted to the defendant through order.

The Court, while pursuing the suit, observed that competing products of the plaintiff and the defendant were identical in terms of packaging. It was further noted by this Court that the defendant copied the various elements including the letter styling, colour scheme, the placement of the various features, the color combination of the packaging, etc. 

In view of the same, the Court observed that on analyzing the products physically, the Court was satisfied of the fact that the defendant’s product was nothing but a counterfeit of the plaintiff’s product. It was further stated that the use of mark “Candy” in lieu of mark “Blue Heaven” of the plaintiff casts no stark distinction between the two rival products. The contention of the plaintiff’s Counsel that the defendant’s product was not even approved by the Drug’s Controller General of India, was also found to be true.the Bench also took note of the fact that there are eyeliners which are used by the consumers on their eyes, and hence, the standard of quality that is expected in this regard is quite high. Counterfeits/ knock-offs cannot be encouraged, added the Court.

The Court further opined that this was not the case of innocent adoption. Also, considering reasonable assessment of the products which would have been sold by the defendant, the present suit was decreed for Rs 10 lakh as damages. Also, directions were issued to pay the said amount within eight weeks, failing which the plaintiff was given the liberty to commence the execution proceedings against the defendant. Accordingly, the suit was decreed.