Trademark Violation And Illegal Export: Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Gets Relief

Must Read

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,...

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...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

The Delhi High Court has stayed the illegal export of products manufactured by Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd by twelve entities, stating that it was a prima facie violation of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

“…for the present, till the next date of hearing, the Defendant No. 1 to 12,….are restrained from exporting, (online/offline/directly or indirectly), Plaintiff’s goods in the international market bearing the trademark/artistic design/logo PATANJALI/PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED or any other trademark, as may be identical with or deceptively/ confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s trademark “PATANJALI/PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED”., the Court ordered.

Granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Masala King Exports Trading Private Limited and 11 other companies from exporting products manufactured by Patanjali Ayurved Limited (PAL) in the international market, the Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Patanjali. Justice Sanjeev Narula clarified that the defendant companies may continue to sell the plaintiff Patanjali’s products in the domestic market and the injunction was restricted to export of products in the international market only. Justice Sanjeev Narula clarified that the defendant companies may continue to sell the plaintiff Patanjali’s products in the domestic market and the injunction was restricted to export of products in the international market only.

Senior Counsel Dayan Krishnan appeared on behalf of Patanjali along with Rohan Ahuja and Sonali Dhir of Athena Legal. Krishnan submitted that in order to prevent such illegal export, PAL issued letters to the Customs authorities, however, the illegal exports have continued. PAL has also lodged complaints with the Commissioner of Customs, however, the Customs authorities stated that the intellectual property rules do not apply to exports and no action has been taken on the complaint, Krishnan said. He submitted that PAL presently does not have any authorized channel for export of its products and the entire export is being done solely by PAL itself through its own IEC No. 0506062686. The packaging of the products that are meant for domestic sale is completely different from those that are meant for export, Krishnan submitted. Krishnan informed the court that Patanjali has come across instances where its goods have been tampered with or altered, thereby creating a risk towards the quality of the goods and the reputation of PAL attached with them. Specifically, it was found that a sticker on a packet of Patanjali’s wheat flour that is indicated to be fit for consumption within four months from the date of manufacture was replaced by a second sticker which stated that the product was fit for consumption within nine months. Advocate Amit Bansal appeared on behalf of the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), who is also one of the defendants.

Order

Referring to the averments of altering and tampering of Patanjali products by exporters in the international market, Justice Narula noted that the doctrine of the first sale would be limited to selling the branded item in the same condition that it was sold-

“In view of the categorical stand taken in the suit that the Plaintiff Company does not authorise any dealer to carry out the export of its product, the acquisition of the products for the purpose of export could only be done through the Plaintiff. The goods that are being exported are meant only for domestic sale. Thus, export of such products would conflict the rights of the Plaintiff and prima facie, it would also be an infringement under Section 29 (1) read with Section 29 (6) of the Act. It also prima facie appears that in case the Defendants No. 1 to 13 are permitted to alter the product in question, in the manner which is alleged to have been done, it would attract the provisions of Section 30(4) of the Trade Mark Act 1999.”
It further observed that the defendants’ conduct of altering the products would prima facie attract the provisions of Section 30(4) of the Act.

The doctrine of first sale which cuts off trademark owner’s rights after its products are first sold would be limited to selling the branded item in the same condition when it was first sold. The acts complaint of, like affixing stickers and altering the entire list of ingredients/nutritional facts amounts to “materially” changing the product made by the trademark owner. This would certainly put the image of the company in peril and thus would contravene Section 30 (4) of the Trade Mark Act,1999.”

It thus allowed Patanjali’s prayer seeking an injunction in respect of export of its products in the international market. The Court concluded that the balance of convenience was in favour Patanjali as it would suffer irreparable harm if defendants were not restrained from continuing the illegal export. The Court has, however, clarified that the defendants may continue to sell Patanjali products in the domestic market. The matter will be heard next on May 16 2019.

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

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...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -