Bombay HC Temporarily Restrains Emami from Using the Term ‘Glow & Handsome’

Must Read

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Follow us

A single bench of Bombay High Court’s Justice S.C. Gupte gave an order in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Emami Ltd. Here, the Court granted an interim injunction on Emami from using the trademark ‘Glow and Handsome’.

Brief Facts of the Case

The present case came before the Court when the Plaintiff HUL, a prior user of the term ‘Glow and Handsome’ under its trademark ‘fair and lovely’, filed an interim application for restraining the defendant Emami from using the trademark ‘Glow and Handsome’.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The counsel for the petitioner submitted the following arguments:

  1. The plaintiff has been selling the products under their trademark ‘Fair & Lovely’ since 1975 and has since then become a household name.
  2. The plaintiff applied for registration of the new trademark ‘Glow and Handsome’ on 7 September 2018. They announced their intention of selling products under the trademark ‘Glow and Handsome’ on 3 July 2020, and the permission for using this trademark came from the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) on 3 August 2020.
  3. They advertised the new trademark extensively.
  4. The defendant, on 27 July 2020, announced the use of the trademark ‘Glow and Handsome’ for its products.

Therefore, the application for an interim injunction is filed.

Respondent’s Arguments

The counsel for the respondent submitted that:

  1. They have been using the trademark ‘Fair & Handsome’, and hence, the plaintiff cannot use the term ‘Glow & Handsome’.
  2. They have already filed an infringement petition in the Calcutta High Court against the Plaintiff (no interim relief granted yet).
  3. They applied for the trademark registration of ‘Glow and Handsome’ on 25 June 2020, and the trademark journal published the same.
  4. They also digitally launched the trademark ‘Glow and Handsome’ on 27 June 2020.

Court’s Observations

The Court after analysing the rival submissions observed that:

  1. The plaintiff appears to be a prior adopter and user of the term ‘Glow and Handsome’ as it has already launched products under this name in the market, whereas the defendant is still in the adopting stage.
  2. However, that jurisdiction on whether such use of the term by the plaintiff amounts to infringement or not lies with the Calcutta High Court only.
  3. On the argument that even if the plaintiff adopted the name first, they could not prove to have sufficient public name, it was observed that they had spent a good amount in the advertisement of their product under the new title, thus, raising doubt in the defendant’s argument.

Court’s Decision

The defendant is restrained from using the term ‘Glow & Handsome’ for the time being till the final disposal of the case. Moreover, the plaintiff cannot claim any equity through this order as this order does not have any effect on the jurisdiction and decision of the Calcutta High Court.

The defendant shall file I.A. in two weeks followed by a rejoinder if any, within two weeks after. The hearing on I.A. shall be listed after five weeks.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped her in a dressing room,...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on behalf of all the minority...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Women. The...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -