It was also, in the alternative, prayed that the said ex parte order dated July 2, 1998, be clarified that the defendant was not restrained from manufacturing and supplying the Avon Product to Avon Beauty Product Private Limited under its existing name NECTAR (U.K) Limited.
6026/1998, under Order 39, Rule 4, CPC and requested the Court to either vacate the ex parte interim injunction order dated July 2, 1998, or the same be modified/varied so as to permit the defendant to use its corporate name while disclosing the name of manufacturer of the Avon Products on the packaging and the product. On July 21, 1998, the sole defendant NECTAR (U.K) Limited moved an application being I.A No. Originally the suit was filed against one defendant, namely, NECTAR (U.K) Limited. Ramamoorthy, J., the Vacation Judge, while issuing notice passed an ex parte interim order directing the defendant, its proprietor, partners, directors, servants, agents, representatives and assigns from using NECTAR and/or any other trade-mark or trade-name deceptively or confusingly similar to the trade-mark NECTAR in respect of lipsticks or other cosmetics products until further orders.Ĥ. 5373/1998, was moved during the vacations on Jand K.
Thereafter, the second application I.A No. only issued notice in the same and did not pass any ex parte interim order. 5042/1998, was taken up for consideration on May 29, 1998, C.M Nayar, J. On perusal of the order sheets in the suit, it transpires that when the first application I.A No. Firstly, in the first application, the relief sought is by way of interlocutory injunction whereas in the second application the relief sought for is by way of permanent injunction secondly, in the first application it is not mentioned as to in respect of which goods the relief is sought for whereas in the second application the relief sought for is in respect of lipsticks or other cosmetics products and, thirdly in the first application the relief sought for is in respect of only the trade-mark NECTAR whereas in the second application, the relief sought for is in respect of trade-mark as well as trade-name.ģ. Thus in the reliefs claimed in these applications there are few distinctions. by a permanent injunction restraining it from using NECTAR/and or any other trade-mark or trade-name deceptively or confusing similar to the trade-mark NECTAR in respect of lipsticks or other cosmetics products.Ģ. In the second application the relief claimed is to restrain the defendant, its proprietor etc. be restrained from using the trademark NECTAR/and or any other trade-mark deceptively or confusing similar to the trade-mark NECTAR and from passing off its goods as and for the goods of the plaintiff's, by use of the trade-mark NECTAR.
In the first application the relief sought is that the defendant, its proprietor etc. 5042/1998, and 5373/1998, have been moved by plaintiff Herb Shop (India) Private Limited under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC in S. A.K Srivastava, J.- The interim applications being I.As No.
0 kommentar(er)
