Ds Confectionery Products Limited vs. Nirmala Gupta And Anr

Facts

The plaintiff, DS Confectionery Products Limited, a part of the Dharampal Satyapal Group, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Nirmala Gupta and another defendant. The plaintiff alleged infringement of its trademark 'PULSE' and associated trade dress for confectionery products. The plaintiff launched its 'PULSE' candy in December 2014 and expanded its product line and flavours over the years. The plaintiff also claimed copyright in its artistic work for the candy packaging. The plaintiff discovered in May 2020 that the defendants were advertising and selling candies under the trademarks 'PELSE' and 'PLUS++' with a similar trade dress under the 'SNEH' trading style. The defendants' proprietorship concern, M/s Silver Products, was identified through third-party websites, with the GST number indicating the first defendant as the owner and the second defendant involved in its management. The defendants were proceeded ex-parte after non-appearance despite service.

Held

The Court held that the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of prayers for permanent injunction. The Court found that the plaintiff's trademark 'PULSE' is a well-known trademark and that the defendants' marks 'PELSE' and 'PLUS++' along with their trade dress are deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark and trade dress, leading to infringement and passing off. The Court noted that the defendants failed to appear before the Court despite service, and their averments in the plaint remained unrebutted. The Court applied the principles of summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial. Regarding damages, the Court, relying on previous judgments, awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff, considering the defendants' failure to appear and the need to deter future infringements. The plaintiff was also awarded costs of the suit. The Court granted a decree of permanent injunction and damages.

Key Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing with confectionery products under the trademarks 'PELSE' and 'PLUS++' or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark 'PULSE', thereby infringing the plaintiff's trademark and copyright, and passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff, under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, and Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957? Petitioner's Arguments: The plaintiff argued that its trademark 'PULSE' is a well-known trademark, having been declared as such by this Court in a previous judgment. The plaintiff also asserted copyright in its artistic work for the packaging of its 'PULSE' candy. The plaintiff contended that the defendants' use of 'PELSE' and 'PLUS++' marks and trade dress is deceptively similar to its own, leading to infringement and passing off. The plaintiff relied on its extensive sales figures, advertising expenditure, and trademark registrations, including international registrations, to establish the distinctiveness and reputation of its mark. Revenue/State's Arguments: No arguments were recorded for the defendants as they were proceeded ex-parte.