Delhi High Court
Reckitt Benckiser (India)Private … vs Sauss Home Products Private Limited on 14 August, 2025
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 13th May, 2025
Judgment pronounced on: 14th August, 2025
I.A. 14723/2023 & I.A. 20814/2023
IN
+ CS(COMM) 539/2023
RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA)
PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. C.M. Lall, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Ms. Ekta
Sarin, Mr. Nikhil Sharma,
Ms. Vanshika Arora and
Ms. Annanya Mehan, Advocates.
versus
SAUSS HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE
LIMITED .....Defendant
Through: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Ms. Ramya
Aggarwal, Mr. Aakarsh Mishra,
Mr. Ishank Jha and Ms. Vaishnavi
Bhargava, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
JUDGMENT
AMIT BANSAL, J.
1. By way of the present judgment, I shall decide I.A. 14723/2023 filed
on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking interim injunction and I.A.
20814/2023 filed on behalf of the defendant under Order VII, Rules 10 and
11, CPC seeking return/rejection of plaint.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 1 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
I.A. 20814/2023 (u/O VII Rules 10 and 11, CPC)
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendant
seeking return/rejection of plaint.
3. The principal ground taken by the defendant is that this Court lacks
territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit on the ground that the
plaintiff’s registered office is situated in Haryana.
4. It is submitted that as per Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
and/or Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the plaintiff cannot claim
jurisdiction of this Court since it does not carry on business or personally
works for gain in Delhi.
5. It is further stated that not only does the defendant not have any office
in Delhi, but no alleged infringing goods are available in the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. The invoice produced by the plaintiff also arises
out of sale by one ‘Mangal Trading Company’, based in Krishna Nagar,
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.
6. It is the settled position of law that an application under Order VII,
Rules 10 and 11 has to be decided on the basis of a demurrer; the Court has
to refer only to the averments made in the plaint along with the documents
filed with it for the purpose of deciding this application. No reference can be
made to the written statement filed by the defendant or on any other
document filed by the defendant.
7. At this stage, reference may be made to the relevant paragraph in the
plaint dealing with the issue of the jurisdiction. Paragraph 34 of the plaint is
set out below:-
“34. This Hon’ble Court has the necessary territorial jurisdiction to
entertain and try the present suit, under Section 20 of the Code of CivilSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 2 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
Procedure, 1908 as the cause of action for the present suit has arisen
within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The Defendant is selling the
products bearing the device of Robin bird in Delhi. Additionally, the
Defendant is also offering for sale, advertising and promoting its goods
bearing the device on the website viz. IndiaMart.com which is accessible
in New Delhi.”
8. The plaintiff has also placed on record an invoice to show that the
products of the defendant have been shipped to a consignee in Delhi for
purposes of sale. (pages 15-17, volume 1 of the plaintiff’s documents).
9. Further, in a suit filed by the defendant before the Commercial Court
in Agra, the defendant herein (plaintiff in the suit) has specifically averred
that its goods bearing the device mark of the bird are sold all over India. The
relevant pleadings from the plaint before the Agra Commercial Court are set
out below: –
“12. That the Plaintiff has also spent substantial amount in advertising
it’s said products in India and thus, have earned valuable goodwill and
reputation among the public and trade in India.”
“18. That the Plaintiff is the Registered Owner of the trade/ device
mark, DEVICE OF BIRD under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the
Copyright Act, 1957 and is continuously using the said mark/device since
the year 1976 without any hindrance or interference and is known for its
quality goods all over India. Thus, the Defendant has no justification for
adoption and use of the trade/ device mark(s)…”
10. Basis the averments made in the plaint along with the documents filed
therewith, at this stage, the plaintiff has established jurisdiction of this
Court. Therefore, in light of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
application filed by the defendant and the same is accordingly dismissed.
I.A. 14723/2023 (u/O XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC)
11. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 3 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
seeking grant of an interim injunction against the defendant.
12. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from infringing the trademarks and copyright of
the plaintiff and passing off their business as that of the plaintiff and other
ancillary reliefs.
13. Summons in the present suit were issued on 8th August 2023 and the
defendant entered appearance on 18th October 2023.
14. Notice in the present application was also issued on 8th August 2023.
However, no ad interim injunction order was passed in favour of the
plaintiff.
15. Pleadings in the suit, as well as the present application, stand
completed.
16. Thereafter, the matter was listed on various dates and submissions on
behalf of the counsel for the parties in the present application were heard on
6th March 2025, 24th April 2025 and 13th May 2025, when the judgment was
reserved.
CASE SET UP IN THE PLAINT
17. Briefly stated, the case set up in the plaint is as follows: –
I. The Plaintiff, Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited, is an Indian
company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Reckitt Benckiser
Group plc. (hereinafter ‘Reckitt Group’). The plaintiff carries on
business in the field of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG),
including but not limited to bleaching preparations and other
substances for laundry use, cleaning preparations and fabric stain-
removing preparations.
II. The Reckitt Group has been in existence for over 200 years and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 4 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
has operations in more than 60 countries with products sold in
nearly 200 countries. It also has approximately 45 manufacturing
facilities worldwide and employs around 40,000+ people
worldwide.
III. The annual turnover of the plaintiff in India for FY 2021-2022 is
INR 8,000 Crores while the Reckitt Group has a global turnover of
USD 17 Billion (INR 1,41,000 Crores).
IV. The Reckitt Group adopted the trade mark ‘ROBIN’ in the year
1899 along with the device of the bird for use upon and in relation
to its rice starch meant for the purposes of cleaning.
V. Since the year 1899, the Reckitt Group has been continuously
using the device of ‘Robin’ bird along with the word ‘Robin’,
extensively in many countries across the globe. The ‘Robin’ marks
of the Reckitt Group has been advertised extensively.
VI. The plaintiff’s first registration of ‘Robin’ bird device in India
dates back to the year 1942. Since then, the plaintiff has applied
for and secured registrations of the device of ‘Robin’ bird,
including composite trademarks containing the device of the
‘Robin’ bird. A table containing various registrations granted in
favour of the plaintiff are given in paragraph 10 of the plaint.
VII. The plaintiff ‘s first trademark registration for the markin India bearing no.797954 (hereinafter ‘subject
device mark’) was granted on 7th April, 1998 in class 3 on a
‘proposed to be used’ basis, and the first Copyright registration forSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 5 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
the same was obtained in 2001.
VIII. The plaintiff has extensive sales for products sold under the trade
mark ‘ROBIN’ and the device of ‘Robin’ bird in India, details of
which are given in paragraph 15 of the plaint.
IX. On or about May 2017, the plaintiff came to learn that the
defendant has filed an application bearing no. 3446472 in class 35
seeking registration of a composite label mark containing the
device of a bird, depicted in an identical manner as that of
plaintiff’s device of the ‘Robin’ bird, claiming use since 1st April,
1976. The plaintiff filed its notice of opposition bearing no.888617
against registration of the said mark.
X. In the aforesaid opposition proceedings, the defendant neither filed
a counter-statement nor did they file any evidence in support of
their application.
XI. Despite the aforesaid opposition proceedings, the defendant
continued to file cleverly drafted trademark applications for the
subject device mark with different descriptions without describing
the device as that of a ‘Robin’ bird device with the intention to
evade scrutiny. The defendant was granted registrations for the
device mark through the said applications.
XII. The defendant had filed a suit before the Commercial Court, Agra,
i.e. Original Suit No.8/2023 (hereinafter ‘Agra Suit’) on 25th May,
2023 seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the plaintiff
(defendant therein) from using the subject device mark. In the
Agra Suit, an ex parte ad interim order dated 29th May, 2023 (pageSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 6 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
1112, volume 1 of the plaintiff’s documents) was passed in favour
of the defendant herein, restraining the plaintiff herein from using
the subject device mark.
XIII. Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the plaintiff herein
before the Allahabad High Court, being FAOD no.670 of 2023 and
vide order dated 21st June, 2023 (page 1116, volume 1 of the
plaintiff’s documents), the injunction order passed by the Agra
Commercial Court was stayed.
18. Aggrieved by the use of the impugned mark by the defendant, the
present suit was filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction on the basis
of infringement and passing off, along with other ancillary reliefs.
CASE SET UP IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
19. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, it has been
pleaded as under: –
I. The defendant, Sauss Home Products Private Limited, is a
company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, which is
engaged in, inter alia, the business of manufacturing and
marketing of washing soap, washing powder, detergent powder
and cake and their allied products.
II. The defendant has honestly and with bona fide intentions, adopted
the trade/device mark of a bird, i.e. in the year
1976 through their predecessor, ‘Sabun Oudyogic Utpadan
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 7 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
Sahakari Samiti Ltd.’ which was the first owner of the artistic work
of the bird device mark and had been using the said mark(s) in
respect of the above-mentioned goods ever since.
III. The defendant is the true registered owner and/or legitimateproprietor of the trade/device mark of a bird, i.e.
and the artistic work in the said device which corresponds to
multiple copyright registrations granted in favour of the defendant,
all of which are valid and subsisting. The details of the
registrations obtained by the defendant are given in paragraph 7 of
the written statement.
IV. The plaintiff’s marks are invalid. The defendant has filed
rectification petitions against trademark registrations granted in
favour of the plaintiff.
V. No infringement suit is maintainable against the defendant since
the defendant holds valid registrations for bird device marks that it
is using.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF
20. Mr. C.M. Lall, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
plaintiff has made the following submissions: –
i. There is no dispute between the parties that the rival marks are
identical, as both parties have filed opposition and/or rectification
proceedings against each other’s trademark applications/registrations
granted in their favour for the bird device mark.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 8 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
ii. The defendant’s bird device mark is virtually identical to the
plaintiff’s in all material aspects such as colour scheme, layout, get-up
etc.
iii. The plaintiff is the prior user and registered proprietor of the subject
device mark. The defendant has not filed any document to establish
use of the bird device mark since 1976 and has filed no document to
show use prior to that of the plaintiff’s registered mark.
iv. Owing to the significant sales and advertising of the products bearing
the subject device mark, the plaintiff has acquired substantial
goodwill and reputation in the market in the subject device mark.
v. The 2-page document relied on by the defendant in support of prior
use, i.e. ‘Sainik Newspaper’, is manufactured/fabricated and cannot
be relied upon.
vi. The interim application in the Agra Suit has been dismissed by the
Commercial Court, Agra vide order dated 25th February, 2025 (PDF
page 813, volume 4 of the plaintiff’s documents). No appeal against
the said order has been filed till date.
vii. There is no delay in filing the present suit at the plaintiff’s end as the
plaintiff only became aware of the use of the subject device mark in
March, 2023.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANT
21. Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
defendant has made the following submissions: –
i. The defendant is clearly the prior user of the subject device mark. The
earliest registration granted in favour of the defendant for the subject
device mark is dated 22nd June, 2006 in class 3, claiming user since 1stSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 9 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
April 1976.
ii. The earliest documents evidencing use of the subject device mark by
the plaintiff are from the years 2006-2007, which is subsequent to the
defendant’s adoption of the subject device mark.
iii. The plaintiff has filed oppositions against four trademark applications
of the defendant. Pleadings of the plaintiff in the said proceedings
amount to an admission of non-use prior to the defendants.
iv. Despite being aware of the use since May, 2017, the plaintiff only
filed the present suit in August, 2023, hence the plaint suffers from
delay and laches.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
22. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
23. It is an undisputed position that both the plaintiff and the defendant
have obtained multiple registrations for the subject device mark under the
provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957.
24. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for infringement as
well as passing off. Under Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, an action
on the basis of passing off is maintainable dehors the registration granted
under the Trade Marks Act. A reference may be made to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai1, wherein the
Supreme Court has held that the rights of the prior user are superior to the
rights of a subsequent user emerging out of registration. Therefore, I proceed
to decide the present application on the principles of passing off.
25. At the outset, it may be relevant to see a comparison of the marks
1
(2016) 2 SCC 683
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 10 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
used by the plaintiff and the defendant. The same set out below: –
Reckitt’s Trade Mark Sauss’s Mark
26. The comparison above would show that the two marks are nearly
identical. Not only is the shape of the bird deceptively similar, but the colour
scheme, layout and copyright are also almost identical. Further, both the
plaintiff and the defendant are using the subject device mark for identical
goods, i.e. laundry and cleaning goods. Therefore, the only relevant question
before this Court at this stage is to determine who is the prior adopter and
user of the subject device mark.
27. It is the case of the plaintiff that it engaged the services of a famous
artist, Mr. Shombit Ranjan Sengupta, to design the subject device of the
‘Robin’ bird. This is demonstrated from an Article on an interview with the
said artist published in the ‘Hindu Business Line’ dated 1st July, 1999 (page
7, volume 2 of the plaintiff’s documents) wherein the artist has explained the
process of creating the subject device mark. Further, the Article also notes
that products bearing the subject device mark were rolled out for sale
nationally from November, 1998 and that the sales of the plaintiff’s product
have grown since the adoption of the subject device mark.
28. In support of its user, the plaintiff has also placed on record a
Chartered Accountant (CA) certificate dated 2nd August, 2023, showing
significant sales of goods bearing the trademark of ‘Robin’ and the ‘Robin’
Bird device from 2000 till 2023 (page 741, volume 1 of the plaintiff’s
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 11 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
documents). It is evident from the CA certificate that the plaintiff has
impressive sales for the products under the subject device mark. For the year
2022 alone, the sales figures are to the tune of Rs. 23 Crores.
29. Based on the averments made in the plaint and the documents placed
on record, at a prima facie stage, the plaintiff has been able to establish its
goodwill and reputation in the subject device mark. Further, the plaintiff has
also been able to establish, on a prima facie basis, use of the subject device
mark, at the very least, since the year 2000.
30. On the other hand, the defendant’s earliest trademark application
bearing the subject device mark dates back to 22nd June 2006, with a claimed
prior use of 1st April 1976. The defendant published a caution notice with
respect to said mark on 2nd April, 2006 in the ‘Dainik Jagran’ newspaper,
Bareilly Edition (page 28, volume 1 of the defendant’s documents).
31. On 12th December, 2007, the defendant was granted copyright
registration bearing no. A-81661/2007 for its bird device mark, once again
claiming first publication in 1976 (page 363, volume 1 of the defendant’s
documents).
32. In support of its user of the bird device from 1976, the defendant has
filed two pages of one ‘Sainik Newspaper’, Agra dated 21st September, 1997
(PDF page 36, volume 2 of the defendant’s documents). The aforesaid
document was first filed in the present suit on 3rd October, 2023 pursuant to
the order passed by this Court on 8th August, 2023, directing the parties to
file their best evidence, including newspaper advertisements, in order to
show prior user and adoption of the subject device mark. Pertinently, the
‘Sainik Newspaper’ was not filed by the defendant either with the plaint in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 12 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
the Agra Suit or in any of the opposition proceedings before the Trade Mark
Registry.
33. The ‘Sainik Newspaper’ filed by the defendant is dated 21st
September, 1997. Pertinently, the newspaper carries news reports in respect
of events which happened much after the year 1997, as detailed below.
34. The ‘Sainik Newspaper’ carries an Article which states that on
September 20, 1997, Pakistan conducted tests of its Babar missile. The
plaintiff has placed on record news articles from reputed national
newspapers [Hindustan Times (English edition), PDF page 1360, Volume 2
of the plaintiff’s documents and Navbharat Times (Hindi edition), PDF page
1360, Volume 2 of the plaintiff’s documents] that show that the test of Babar
missiles by Pakistan occurred on 12th August, 2005.
35. Similarly, the ‘Sainik Newspaper’ carried another Article relating to
an attack on the USA’s Ambassador’s in car in Peshawar, Pakistan. As per
newspapers placed on record by the plaintiff, [Hindustan Times (English
edition), PDF page 1457, Volume 2 of the plaintiff’s documents], the event
occurred on 4th September, 2012 and not in 1997.
36. Counsel for the defendant does not dispute that the aforesaid events
reported in the 21st September, 1997 edition of the ‘Sainik Newspaper’
occurred at a much later point in time. The only defence offered by the
defendant is that the defendant cannot be held responsible if the newspaper
has published false news of events which happened much after the date of
publication. It is submitted that the newspaper editor can be summoned and
an explanation can be sought from him.
37. There is no need to summon the editor of the ‘Sainik Newspaper’ at
this stage, as at this stage, the Court only has to take a prima facie view for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 13 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
deciding the present application. Based on the facts narrated above, on a
prima facie view, it appears that the aforesaid newspaper is a
manufactured/fabricated document and has been filed in the present suit
only for the purposes of establishing prior use of the subject device mark
since 1997 by the defendants.
38. The defendant has also placed reliance on the following documents to
show their prior user of the subject device mark: –
a) Certificate from the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax dated 20th
January, 2009 showing sales from 1975 to 2009 (page 237, volume 1
of the defendant’s documents).
b) Chartered Accountant certificate 3rd May, 2023 for depicting sales
figures of the defendants from the year 2017 till 2023 (page 235,
volume 1 of the defendant’s documents).
39. The only reference in the said documents is to the mark ‘Pooja’. There
is no reference to the ‘Robin’ device mark.
40. On a prima facie view, the documents filed by the defendant to
establish prior use do not inspire confidence. Therefore, I am unable to
accept the contention of the defendant that it adopted and has been using the
subject device mark since 1st April, 1976. Consequently, in my prima facie
view, the plaintiff has been able to establish its prior use and adoption of the
aforesaid mark.
41. In fact, a similar view was taken by the Commercial Court, Agra in
the order dated 25th February, 2025, while dismissing the application seeking
interim injunction. It was held that none of the documents placed on record
by the defendant (plaintiff therein) were able to show that the defendant was
using the subject device mark since 1976.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 14 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
42. It has also been contended on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff
did not use the ‘Robin’ device mark, and this fact has not been denied by the
plaintiff in the counter-statement filed in the rectification petitions of the
defendant. A bare perusal of the counter-statement filed by the plaintiff
reflects that the plaintiff has specifically denied the contention of the
defendant with regard to non-use (paragraph 33 of the counter-statement,
page 521, volume 1 of the plaintiff’s documents).
43. The defendant further contends that the plaintiff became aware of the
defendant’s use of the subject device mark in 2017 when the plaintiff came
across the defendant’s application seeking registration of a label bearing the
subject device mark and filed an opposition against the same. Hence, the
present suit has been filed in a highly belated manner.
44. The plaintiff submits that since the defendant never filed any counter-
statement or evidence in support of its use in the aforesaid opposition
proceedings, the plaintiff had no reason to believe that the defendant was
using the subject device mark. Subsequently, the plaintiff became aware of
later trademark registration applications filed by the defendants for the
subject device mark in August, 2022. Immediately upon getting to know of
the defendant’s applications, the plaintiff filed notices of opposition. A legal
notice was also served by the plaintiff on the defendant in March, 2023 and
the present suit was filed in August, 2023. Therefore, in these circumstances,
it cannot be said that there was a delay in filing the present suit.
45. In any event, it is a settled position of law that delay cannot be a
defence in an action for infringement and passing off in a case where the
defendant’s adoption of the mark itself is dishonest. In this regard, a
reference may be made to the judgment in Hindustan Pencils Private
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 15 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
Limited v. India Stationery Products Co.2, wherein it was held that mere
inordinate delay cannot, by itself, create a bar from the grant of an interim
injunction, especially in cases where the use of the mark by the defendant is
fraudulent in nature. Further, in Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir
Bhatia3, the Supreme Court has held that in an action for infringement of
trade mark, mere delay in instituting the suit is not sufficient to deny the
relief of injunction.
46. In my considered view, the adoption of the subject device mark by the
defendant is not honest and bona fide, and it appears the same has been
adopted only to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff.
47. In view of the discussion above, a prima facie case of passing off is
made out on behalf of the plaintiff. The competing marks are identical and
are used by the parties in relation to identical goods, i.e. laundry and
cleaning products, which is likely to cause confusion and deception among
the consumers who are ordinary persons of average intelligence and
imperfect recollection. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant.
48. Irreparable harm and injury would be caused not only to the plaintiff
but also to the public at large if the defendant continues to use the infringing
mark.
49. Accordingly, the defendant, its directors, employees, agents, servants,
dealers, distributors, stockists, licensees and all persons and/or entities
claiming through it are restrained from passing off the plaintiff’s registered
trademarks as detailed in paragraph 10 of the plaint, including the ‘Robin’
2
AIR 1990 DELHI 19
3
(2004) 3 SCC 90
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 16 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14
bird device mark , or any other identical/deceptively similar
mark, in any manner whatsoever, till the final adjudication of this suit.
50. Further, the defendant, its directors, employees, agents, servants,
dealers, distributors, stockists, licensees and all persons and/or entities
claiming through it are restrained from infringing the plaintiff’s copyright in
artistic work registered under no. A-59491/2001 by reproducing, printing,
publishing, using and/or communicating to the public the device of bird
and/or any other work which is a reproduction of the artistic
work comprised in the plaintiff’s copyright or any substantial part thereof, in
any manner whatsoever, till the final adjudication of this suit.
51. Needless to state, any observations made herein are only for the
purpose of adjudication of the present application and would have no
bearing on the final outcome of the suit.
52. The present application stands disposed of in the above terms.
AMIT BANSAL
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 14, 2025
Vivek/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 539/2023 Page 17 of 17
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:14.08.2025
15:00:14