Case Title: Pidilite Industries v. Premier Stationery Industries
Court: Bombay High Court
Date of Ruling: August 13, 2024
Judge: Justice Riyaz Chagla
Penalty Imposed: ₹50 lakh
Background:
On August 13, 2024, the Bombay High Court imposed a substantial penalty of ₹50 lakh for contempt of court on a company found to be using a trademark that was deceptively similar to Fevicol, despite a prior injunction prohibiting such use.
Key Points:
1. Contempt of Court:
The court determined that, in defiance of a July 13, 2017 injunction, the company continued to sell products with trademarks closely resembling Fevicol, thus violating the court’s directive.
2. Defendants’ Claims:
Kusum Puri Goswami, the former owner, argued that they had transferred ownership of the company to Rajinder Puri Goswami and, therefore, should not be held liable for the contempt.
Rajinder Puri Goswami and the new company contended they were unaware of the 2017 injunction order and the related consent terms.
3. Court’s Findings:
Justice Chagla rejected these claims, highlighting the ongoing business connections between Kusum and Rajinder Puri Goswami. Evidence indicated that, despite ‘NIL’ income tax returns, the infringing products continued to be produced and sold through related entities.
The court also found that the respondents had made misleading statements about halting the sale of the infringing products and demonstrated a lack of remorse for their actions.
4. Court’s Ruling:
The court underscored the necessity of enforcing judicial orders and levied a ₹50 lakh fine on the respondents, to be paid to Pidilite Industries within four weeks of the order’s publication.
The court warned that non-compliance would result in civil imprisonment for up to two weeks in Arthur Road Jail, Mumbai.
Conclusion:
This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to enforcing intellectual property rights and upholding court orders. It highlights the serious consequences for contempt of court, particularly in commercial disputes, reinforcing the importance of compliance with legal directives.
To read the case, please visit