PARTIES
The Plaintiffs are
The Defendants Kishor D. Jain who is involved in the business of trading in steel
BRIEF FACTS
The plaintiff in the present case filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants from using its trademark. The suit was filed on the basis of a complaint that the plaintiff received from a steel company in
On further enquiry it was found that the supplies of the defendants were accompanied by fabricated inspection certificates issued in relation to the counterfeited goods.
ISSUE
Whether the acts of the defendants make them liable for counterfeiting the plaintiff's trademark under the Trademarks Act, 1999?
APPLICABLE RULES
- Section 102 of the Trademark Act, 1999
- Section 103 of the Trademark Act, 1999.
ARGUMENTS
On such allegations of counterfeiting products by the plaintiff, the Court appointed receivers to visit the premises of the defendants and report on their activities.
The reports of the receivers showed the defendants possessing several inspection certificates and a large quantity of branded and unbranded pipes in their premises.
The defendants submitted that after receiving pipes from the supplier, they had put the plaintiff's logo on the pipes and thereafter had the inspection certificates fabricated so as to falsely represent that the goods originated from the plaintiff.
The plaintiff submitted that the goods in question are used in the oil industry and may result in dreadful accidents if they are fake and do not meet the required standards. The plaintiff also submitted that such acts of counterfeiting by the defendants, in addition to causing serious damage to the goodwill of the company, bring disrepute to the reputation of the country. On the basis of its submissions, the plaintiff pleaded before the Court to impose heavy and unprecedented cost on the defendant.
The Court took into consideration the fact that the goods in question are used for extremely sensitive purposes and non satisfaction of the safety requirements of such products were bound to have "disastrous consequences".
DECISION
In view of this fact the Court took the stand to set an example and imposed a cost of
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr Niharika Sanadhya
Khurana and Khurana
E-13, UPSIDC, Site-IV, Behind-Grand Venice
Tel: 1204296878
Fax: 1204516201
E-mail: tarun@khuranaandkhurana.com
URL: www.khuranaandkhurana.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source