TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the bill of lading or any other documents, the same may be intimated to the Plaintiffs upon request - The Defendant No. 2 having not permitted imports of the impugned products, paragraph 5 of the prayer clause stands satisfied. None of the goods bearing the impugned mark in the said container no. ECNU4006477, have been allowed to enter India. Accordingly, the injunction is also not required to be passed in view of the statement made in the written statement by the customs authorities. The Plaintiffs are free to take action in accordance with law, either in India, or in other foreign jurisdictions. The present suit is disposed of. - CS(COMM) 612/2021 & I.A. 15704/2021, 15708/2021 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2022 - JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Achuthan Sreekumar and Mr. Rohil Bansal, Advocates. (M:9999756265) Defendants Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Sr. Standing counsel and Mr. Deepak Somani, Advocates for D-2. (M:8368202116) Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The Plaintiffs- Colgate Palmolive Company, USA, and Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. have filed the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21 14. COLGATE 86932 3 15. COLGATE 167064 3 16. 190276 3 17. 190279 3 18. 1416616 3 19. 1576674 3 3. The COLGATE name, packaging and trade dress, are distinctive of the Plaintiffs, and the use of the mark, name COLGATE , trade dress, or any other deceptively/confusingly similar mark or trade dress, would be violative of the Plaintiff s rights, and will also cause confusion in the marketplace among consumers. 4. The present suit has also been filed against the identified Defendant No. 2 which controls customs and ports across India. The Defendant No. 2 has been impleaded in order seeking restraint orders against a particular container which the Plaintiff apprehended as consisting of infringin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 53 of the Copyright Act means bringing into India from outside India , that it is not limited to importation for commerce only, but includes importation for transit across the country. Our interpretation, far from being inconsistent with any principle of international law, is entirely in accord with International Conventions and the Treaties between India and Nepal. And, that we think is as it should be 9. Accordingly, the reliefs set out in the prayer, and sought against Defendant No. 1, are for permanent injunction, restraining manufacture, sale, export, import of the infringing goods, delivery up, etc. The reliefs sought against Defendant No. 2, are in the following terms: An order directing the Defendant No. 2 to immediately freeze the contents of the Container No. ECNU4006477 coming from Ningbo, China via the vessel called SINGAPORE BRIDGE /2106 and to divulge the details of the goods contained therein, the details of the importer, the value and number of the goods , the documents submitted by the importer etc. to the Plaintiffs; 10. Vide order dated 29th November, 2021, summons were issued to Defendant No. 2. Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 2, Mr. Ojha, had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the matter was taken on board, it was argued by the plaintiff that injunctive relief has necessitated requiring answering defendant's aid to intercept the goods there is a possibility of infringing goods being unloaded at that Mundra Port and flooding the Indian Markets. In that connection, upon instructions, it was submitted that Customs authorities will not allow the import of goods in the subject container. The said assurance is complied with and no import from subject container has so far taken place from Mundra Customs. 14. Accordingly, it is submitted by ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 2, that as recorded in the previous order dated 30th November, 2022, and as also stated in the written statement extracted above, the import of the infringing products into India has not been permitted. Mr. Anand submits that even in the future, such imports of infringing products ought not to be permitted. 15. Heard the ld. Counsels and perused the record. The import of goods which violate Intellectual Property Rights is governed by the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 (hereinafter IPR Rules ). As per the said rules, import of any counterfeit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereinbelow: 9. Supply of information to the right holder. - At the request of the right holder, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, shall inform the name and address of the importer and without prejudice to the protection of confidential information the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, may also provide additional relevant information relating to the consignment which has been suspended from clearance. 18. The Defendant No. 2 having not permitted imports of the impugned products, paragraph 5 of the prayer clause stands satisfied. None of the goods bearing the impugned mark in the said container no. ECNU4006477, have been allowed to enter India. Accordingly, the injunction is also not required to be passed in view of the statement made in the written statement by the customs authorities. The Plaintiffs are free to take action in accordance with law, either in India, or in other foreign jurisdictions. 19. Binding the customs authorities to comply with the enforcement of IPR Rules in the future, the present suit is disposed of in these terms. No fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
