Legal Lessons In IP: The Pidilite Contempt Ruling

Posted On - 20 September, 2024 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva

Background

In the case of Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Premier Stationery Industries Pvt. Ltd., the Bombay High Court heard a contempt petition filed by Pidilite Industries. The petition alleged that Premier Stationery Industries and its related entities had violated a 2017 interim injunction, which prohibited them from copying the trade dress and labels of Pidilite’s FEVICOL MR.

Issues Raised

  1. Whether the Respondents willfully violated the 2017 injunction order.
  2. Whether the sale of Premier Stationery Industries to new entities affected liability.
  3. Whether third-party Respondents were involved in the contempt.
  4. Whether the Respondents’ claim of ceasing to use infringing goods was valid.

Petitioner’s Argument

Pidilite argued that despite the 2017 injunction, the Respondents continued to use infringing packaging. They contended that the Respondents, including new entities, continued to benefit from the infringement and sought to evade consequences through claims of business transfer.

Respondent’s Argument

The Respondents claimed that they had sold their business and were no longer involved in the infringing activities. They argued that the new owners (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) were not bound by the 2017 consent terms and presented evidence like income tax returns to support their claims.

Decision

 The Bombay High Court found the respondents in contempt of Court for violating the 2017 injunction. The Court imposed a fine of ₹50 lakh, with a two-week imprisonment sentence for non-payment. The Respondents were permanently enjoined from infringing Pidilite’s trademarks and were ordered to destroy all infringing materials and cease manufacturing or selling such products.

Analysis

This case underscores the importance of enforcing intellectual property rights and Court orders. The Judgment highlights the seriousness of contempt in cases of deliberate violation of injunctions and emphasizes that attempts to evade legal obligations through business transfers are deemed ineffective. The Court’s decisions reflect stringent measures to protect trademark rights and ensure compliance with judicial orders.