Reiterating that the Hindustan Unilever Restricted (HUL) was prima facie the prior adopter of the mark ‘Glow and Good-looking,’ the Bombay excessive court docket (HC) quickly restrained Emami Ltd from utilizing the identical commerce mark for grooming and skincare merchandise till additional orders. The court docket additionally noticed that the order would, nonetheless, not restrain Emami from gaining an identical order within the swimsuit it filed within the Calcutta HC.
The one bench of justice SC Gupte was listening to the interim software in a business swimsuit filed by HUL – in search of a restraint on Emami from utilizing the trademark ‘Glow and Good-looking’. The counsels for HUL submitted that the mark was adopted by the corporate in September 2018 and it additionally utilized for permission from the Meals and Drug Administration to vary the mark ‘Truthful and Beautiful’ to ‘Glow and Good-looking’, which was granted on August 2 this yr.
The counsels additional submitted that in July this yr, HUL introduced its resolution to vary the mark and likewise submitted particulars of the gross sales of its merchandise below the brand new trademark in addition to the expenditure it incurred for the promotion of the brand new trademark. Senior counsel Virag Tulzapurkar and advocate Hiren Kamod for HUL submitted that as Emami was in means of launching merchandise below the trademark on August 17 or 18 and introduced its intentions on July 27, the applying in search of an interim injunction restrained Emami from utilizing the trademark “Glow and Good-looking”.
Senior advocate Jishnu Saha for Emami opposed the applying and stated that it had been advertising skincare merchandise below the trademark “Truthful and Good-looking” and if HUL was allowed to make use of the trademark “Glow and Good-looking” for the same product it will infringe their registered trademark. He additionally submitted that Emami had adopted the mark earlier than and utilized for its registration on June 25. He added that Emami moved an software in opposition to HUL earlier than the Calcutta HC associated to using the trademark in query, and didn’t get hold of any interim order therein.
Saha additional submitted that if HUL was allowed to market its merchandise below the “Glow and Good-looking” mark, there was a concrete chance of confusion and deception within the public, if similar marks are allowed to carry the sector for standard and far bought commodities.
After listening to the submissions, the court docket famous that HUL’s motion was an motion in passing off, because it didn’t maintain the registration of the trademark “Glow & Good-looking”. The court docket then stated that as Emami didn’t introduce its merchandise into the market below its proposed trademark “Glow & Good-looking”, it deserved to be restrained from doing so and handed an ad-interim injunction restraining Emami from utilizing the alleged mark until the ultimate disposal of the swimsuit.
The court docket whereas directing Emami to file its reply to the applying inside two weeks stated, “It’s made clear that this order shall not in any method are available the best way of the defendant (Emami) claiming in its personal swimsuit in Calcutta excessive court docket a restraint order in opposition to the plaintiff’s (HUL) use of the trademark “Glow & Good-looking”.