{"id":26768,"date":"2010-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010"},"modified":"2015-11-18T05:29:46","modified_gmt":"2015-11-17T23:59:46","slug":"marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Marico Limited And Another vs Madhu Gupta on 7 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Marico Limited And Another vs Madhu Gupta on 7 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Rajiv Shakdher<\/div>\n
                THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%\n                                                    Judgment delivered on: 07.04.2010\n\n                IA No.15565\/2009 & IA No. 16243\/2009 in CS(OS) No. 2275\/2009\n\nMARICO LIMITED & ANR                                                  ..... PLAINTIFFS\n\n\n                                                 Vs\n\n\nMADHU GUPTA                                                             ..... DEFENDANT\n\n\nAdvocates who appeared in this case:\n\nFor the Plaintiffs : Ms Anuradha Salhotra with Mr Amritesh Mishra, Ms Doyel Sengupta & Ms Aeshna\n                     Singh, Advocates\n\nFor the Defendant: Mr Sudhir Chandra, Sr Advocate with Mr Manish Kumar, Mr Jayant Mehta, Mr Aditya\n                 Kant & Mr Amit Kumar, Advocates\n\nCORAM :-\nHON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER\n\n1.<\/pre>\n
      Whether the Reporters of local papers may
\n        be allowed to see the judgment ?                          No\n<\/p>\n
2.      To be referred to Reporters or not ?                      Yes\n<\/p>\n
3.      Whether the judgment should be reported
\n        in the Digest ?                                           Yes<\/p>\n
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J<\/p>\n
IA No.15565\/2009 (under O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC by plaintiffs) & IA No. 16243\/2009 (under O.39<\/p>\n
R.4 CPC by defendant)<\/p>\n
1.      By the present order, I propose to dispose of the captioned applications filed by<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs and the defendant.         While the plaintiffs have filed an interlocutory<\/p>\n
application (hereinafter referred to in short as \u2017IA’) being IA No.15565\/2009 under the<\/p>\n
provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short<\/p>\n
\u2017CPC’), the defendant has filed an IA under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC<\/p>\n
being IA No. 16243\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
\n1.1     At the heart of the dispute, is the issue concerning the use of the word mark<\/p>\n
\u2017Kaya’. The defendant, who is essentially running a beauty salon in Ranchi and Dhanbad
\nCS(OS)2275-2009                                                                Page 1 of 18<\/span>
\n under the name and trading style of \u2017The Kaya Beauty Salon & Cosmetics’ – asserts her<\/p>\n
right to use the word mark \u2017KAYA’, as part of her trading style and name in respect of<\/p>\n
which, the plaintiffs claim proprietary rights.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.      In order to appreciate the rival submissions in this regard, the following brief<\/p>\n
facts may be noticed:-\n<\/p>\n
\nPlaintiffs’ case<\/p>\n
2.1     Plaintiff no. 1 is a company which was incorporated on 13.10.1988 with the name<\/p>\n
Marico Foods Limited. After a change of name in 1989, and thereafter in April, 2005 it<\/p>\n
acquired the present name i.e., Marico Limited. Similarly, plaintiff no.2, which is a<\/p>\n
subsidiary of plaintiff no.1 was incorporated on 27.03.2003 with the name \u2017Kaya Beauty<\/p>\n
Services Limited’. The plaintiff no.2 underwent, as in the case of plaintiff no.1, a change<\/p>\n
of name in April-October, 2003, till finally in December, 2007, it acquired the present<\/p>\n
name, which is \u2017Kaya Limited’. The plaintiff no.1 claims to be in the Fast Moving<\/p>\n
Consumer Goods (in short \u2017FMCG’) business while, plaintiff no.2 claims that it provides<\/p>\n
services in the area of \u2017beauty and wellness’.\n<\/p>\n
\n2.2     It is further claimed by plaintiff no.1 that it is a registered proprietor of several<\/p>\n
trademarks since 2002 which consist of the word \u2017Kaya’. Illustratively reference may be<\/p>\n
had to the following registrations in various classes in favour of plaintiff no.1.<\/p>\n
(i) MARICO’S KAYA (Class 5); (ii) KAYA SKIN CLINIC (Class5); (iii) KAYA Class\n<\/p>\n
10); (iv) KAYA SKIN CLINIC (Class 10); (v) MARICO’S KAYA (Class10); (vi)
\nMARICO’S KAYA (Class16).\n<\/p>\n
\n2.2.1   The aforesaid registrations have been operative since October-December, 2002.<\/p>\n
2.3     Similarly, plaintiff no.2 has acquired the following registrations:-<\/p>\n
(i) KAYA GLOW (Class 16); (ii) KAYA GLOW (Class 3); (iii) KAYA SILKY LEGS
\nNITE (Class 42); (iv) KAYA SKIN TALK (Class 41); (v) KAYA BACKLESS NIGHT
\n(Class 41); and (vi) KAYA BACKLESS NIGHT (Class 42);\n<\/p>\n
CS(OS)2275-2009                                                            Page 2 of 18<\/span>
\n 2.4    As per plaintiff no.2 except for the first two registrations \u2017KAYA GLOW’ in<\/p>\n
Class 16 and Class 3 which are valid since 06.05.2003, the rest relate back to 2005. It is<\/p>\n
further claimed by the plaintiffs that applications for registrations of the trademark<\/p>\n
\u2017Kaya’ in Class 3 and 16 are pending. Plaintiffs have also alluded to the fact that<\/p>\n
trademark \u2017Kaya’ is registered and\/or pending registration in number of countries such as<\/p>\n
Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, U.A.E., Saudi Arabia and Egypt. .<\/p>\n
2.5    Plaintiff no.1, thus, has claimed that the trademark \u2017Kaya’ has been used by it<\/p>\n
since 2002 in relation to a wide variety of products which includes cosmetics (non-<\/p>\n
medicated), essential oils, attars, detergents (not for industrial use), incense and incense<\/p>\n
sticks, shaving creams and shaving soaps, shampoos, soaps etc., while plaintiff no.2<\/p>\n
which was incorporated, as noted above, in 2003 is not only using the trademark \u2017Kaya’<\/p>\n
as part of its corporate name but also using the mark extensively in relation to cosmetics,<\/p>\n
hair oils, hair lotions, skin care and health care preparations. It was also averred that<\/p>\n
plaintiff no.2 provides body and personal care services through its clinics and salons<\/p>\n
under the brand\/mark \u2017Kaya Skin Clinic’. It is claimed that it has a clientale of over<\/p>\n
3,50,000 customers, who are provided services through 73 clinics operating under the<\/p>\n
name \u2017Kaya’ in 19 cities in India, in addition to 9 such clinics, in the Middle East. The<\/p>\n
plaintiff no.2 claims that over a period of five years through its clinics operating under<\/p>\n
the name \u2017Kaya Skin Clinic’, it has developed innovative treatment for skin care, and also<\/p>\n
established weight control centres. Plaintiff no.2 has adverted to the fact that between<\/p>\n
the period 2003-04 and 2007-08 its sales revenue has gone up from Rs 4.5 crores to<\/p>\n
Rs 81 crores. It is further averred that in order to familiarize the public at large with its<\/p>\n
trademark and services its expenses on advertisement during the very same period have<\/p>\n
increased from Rs 1.89 crores to Rs.11.10 crores. It is claimed that in view of the huge<\/p>\n
expenses incurred on publicizing its trademark, and as a result of quality of its products<\/p>\n
and services offered, the mark \u2017Kaya’ has become a well-known trademark in relation to<\/p>\n
CS(OS)2275-2009                                                           Page 3 of 18<\/span>
\n beauty care products and services. It is further averred that the trademark \u2017Kaya’ and its<\/p>\n
various variants help in tracing the origin of the goods and services offered under the said<\/p>\n
mark(s) to the plaintiffs. Therefore, it is the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant’s use<\/p>\n
of the trademark \u2017The Kaya Beauty Salon & Cosmetics’ for the purposes of running its<\/p>\n
beauty care and salon outlets in Ranchi and Dhanbad, is bound to create confusion and<\/p>\n
deception in respect of origin of goods and services offered by the defendant.<\/p>\n
DEFENDANT’S CASE<\/p>\n
2.6    The defendant, on the other hand, while accepting the fact that it is engaged in the<\/p>\n
business of providing beauty care services, through its outlets operating in Ranchi and<\/p>\n
Dhanbad; under the trademark \u2017The Kaya Beauty Salon & Cosmetics’; categorically<\/p>\n
asserts that apart from the said outlets, it does not have any outlet within the territorial<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the defendant has sought vacation of an ex-parte<\/p>\n
interim order dated 02.12.2009 particularly on the following grounds:-<\/p>\n
(i)    this Court has no jurisdiction over the defendant as neither the defendant resides<\/p>\n
       nor carries on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.         The<\/p>\n
       defendant has challenged the attempt of the plaintiffs in extending jurisdiction<\/p>\n
       over the defendant by making averments to the effect that the website operated by<\/p>\n
       the defendant offers services to people at large within the jurisdiction of this<\/p>\n
       court. It is averred that the website of the defendant only provides information<\/p>\n
       and is not interactive in nature;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(ii)   the plaintiffs have concealed the fact that the defendant has filed a rectification<\/p>\n
       application on 26.11.2009. It is further averred that in view of the pendency of<\/p>\n
       the rectification application, this suit would have to be first stayed, and only then<\/p>\n
       order, if any, can be passed in the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
       In this regard, provisions of Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/p>\n
       (hereinafter referred to in short as \u2017the Trade Marks Act’) are relied upon;<\/p>\n
CS(OS)2275-2009                                                            Page 4 of 18<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 (iii)   the plaintiffs have failed to disclose an earlier cease and desist notice dated<\/p>\n
        06.03.2007 issued to the defendant prior to the one referred to in the plaint i.e.,<\/p>\n
        cease and desist notice dated 18.11.2009. The concealment of this fact being<\/p>\n
        material, the interim order ought to be vacated;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(iv)    the defendant has been using the trademark \u2017The Kaya Beauty Salon &<\/p>\n
        Cosmetics’ since 01.04.2002 which in point of fact is prior in time to that claimed<\/p>\n
        by the plaintiffs;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(v)     the rights of a registered trademark are class specific. In the facts of the present<\/p>\n
        case, the only trademark registrations which are relevant are those which the<\/p>\n
        plaintiff no.2 has obtained in Class 42 these being: Kaya Silky Legs Nite and<\/p>\n
        Kaya Backless Night. Both of which are registrations of April, 2005. Plaintiffs<\/p>\n
        do not claim user in respect of these registrations prior to 2002, which is the point<\/p>\n
        in time from which the defendant claims user. In this regard the defendant has<\/p>\n
        referred to two bills dated 28.09.2002 and 12.10.2002 (See page 124 of the<\/p>\n
        documents);\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(vi)    the plaintiffs trademark \u2017Marico’s Kaya’ and \u2017Kaya Skin Clinic’ which are the<\/p>\n
        registrations obtained in Class 5 and 10 respectively deliberately do not indicate<\/p>\n
        the point in time from which the said marks have been used and hence, their user<\/p>\n
        cannot be construed prior to 31.12.2002. Similarly, reference has been made to<\/p>\n
        the trademark \u2017Kaya Glow’ under Class 16 and 30;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(vii)   the defendant has filed an application on 14.12.2005 for registration of its<\/p>\n
        trademark \u2017The Kaya Beauty Salon & Cosmetics’. The said mark was advertised<\/p>\n
        in the Trade Mark Journal No. 1371 on 01.07.2007. The plaintiffs filed its<\/p>\n
        opposition only on 18.12.2007 well beyond the statutory limitation of three<\/p>\n
        months. The proceedings are pending adjudication before the Registrar appointed<\/p>\n
        under the Trade Marks Act. It is, thus, clear that the plaintiffs were aware of the<\/p>\n
CS(OS)2275-2009                                                           Page 5 of 18<\/span>
\n          use by the defendant of its trademark \u2017The Kaya Beauty Salon & Cosmetics’ and<\/p>\n
         hence, no interim order ought to be granted in respect of a suit instituted in 2009.<\/p>\n
         It is averred that there is not only delay but also laches and acquiescence<\/p>\n
         associated with the conduct of the plaintiffs;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(viii)   the invoices filed by the plaintiffs dated 03.01.2008, 05.01.2008, 01.01.2004,<\/p>\n
         03.01.2005 and 02.06.2006 have been signed by and\/or on behalf of \u2017Kaya<\/p>\n
         Limited’ which came into existence only on 14.12.2007. Hence, at least the<\/p>\n
         invoices prior to 14.12.2007 are demonstrably forged and fabricated. In so far as<\/p>\n
         invoices dated 03.01.2008 and 05.01.2008 are concerned, they relate to sale of<\/p>\n
         goods and services whereas, defendant’s trademark and activities are only in<\/p>\n
         relation to services;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(ix)     the trademark is \u2017entity specific’ and hence, no one other than the registered<\/p>\n
         proprietor or the permitted user can claim rights over the trademark. In the instant<\/p>\n
         suit, joint rights are claimed over the trademark referred to in the plaint. The<\/p>\n
         plaintiffs have not filed any documents evidencing acquisition of cross-rights over<\/p>\n
         each others’ trademarks; and<\/p>\n
(x)      lastly, but not the least, the word \u2017Kaya’ is both generic and descriptive. The<\/p>\n
         word \u2017Kaya’ has obtained distinctiveness as it is used in collocation with other<\/p>\n
         words. In any event, since the word \u2017Kaya’ is generic it could not have been<\/p>\n
         validly registered.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.       In support of their cases, as set up by the plaintiffs and the defendant in the<\/p>\n
pleadings, their respective counsels have elucidated upon the averments broadly in the<\/p>\n
following manner:-\n<\/p>\n
\n3.1      On behalf of plaintiffs Ms Salhotra has submitted in addition to what is noted<\/p>\n
above, that the plaintiffs are proprietors of registered mark which consist of the word<\/p>\n
\u2017Kaya’. \u2017Kaya’ has attained special secondary distinctive meaning and is relatable to the
\nCS(OS)2275-2009                                                           Page 6 of 18<\/span>
\n goods and services offered by the plaintiffs. She further contends that the said mark<\/p>\n
\u2017Kaya’ and its various variants have been used by the plaintiffs since 2002.<\/p>\n
3.2    The invoices filed are of plaintiff no.2. Plaintiff No.2 was incorporated in March<\/p>\n
2002-03, at which point in time it bore the name \u2017Kaya Beauty Services Limited’. The<\/p>\n
name was changed to \u2017Kaya Aesthetic Limited’ in April, 2003, and once again, changed<\/p>\n
to \u2017Kaya Skin Care Limited’ in October, 2003; till it finally acquired the present name<\/p>\n
i.e., \u2017Kaya Limited’. The invoices in respect of which an objection has been raised by the<\/p>\n
defendant, to the effect that they are fabricated, are in point of fact, attested by plaintiff<\/p>\n
no. 2 under its current name, i.e., Kaya limited.         The invoices relate to the period<\/p>\n
indicated therein, and are not forged and fabricated as alleged.<\/p>\n
3.3    She further contends that there has been no attempt to suppress any material facts<\/p>\n
from this Court, in particular, the pendency of the rectification proceedings filed by the<\/p>\n
defendant. Ms Salhotra contended that the plaintiffs have not to date been served with a<\/p>\n
notice of the rectification proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\n3.4    As regards the allegation of non-disclosure of an earlier cease and desist notice<\/p>\n
dated 06.03.2007 having been issued by the plaintiffs, it has been averred in the reply to<\/p>\n
the application of the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC, that on account of<\/p>\n
change of personnel handling the concerned department, the said legal notice had not<\/p>\n
surfaced. In any event, it was contended that the defendant did not reply to the said cease<\/p>\n
and desist notice dated 06.03.2007. There was, according to Ms Salhotra, no attempt to<\/p>\n
suppress this information which got excluded only on account of unavailability of the<\/p>\n
document at the relevant point in time. The failure to make reference to the said cease<\/p>\n
and desist notice of 06.03.2007 cannot be construed as a material fact. The plaintiffs<\/p>\n
have not acquiesced to the use by the defendant of the plaintiffs mark \u2017Kaya’. This fact is<\/p>\n
clearly reflected in the opposition filed by the plaintiffs to the application for registration<\/p>\n
filed by the defendant in respect of its mark \u2017The Kaya Beauty Salon & Cosmetics’. The<\/p>\n
CS(OS)2275-2009                                                            Page 7 of 18<\/span>
\n notice of opposition admittedly was filed in December, 2007 after the advertisement in<\/p>\n
the Journal was brought to the notice of public in October, 2007. Therefore, not only is<\/p>\n
there no acquiescence on the part of the plaintiffs but also the action of instituting an<\/p>\n
opposition has been taken well within the limitation period prescribed in that regard.<\/p>\n
3.5     Ms Salhotra further contended that apart from the fact that the website of the<\/p>\n
defendant is interactive, this Court has jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of Section<\/p>\n
134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 since the plaintiffs are carrying on business within<\/p>\n
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In support of this submission it was contended<\/p>\n
that in the application filed for registration by the defendant, there are no geographical<\/p>\n
limitations with regard to the use of the mark. In other words, on registration of the<\/p>\n
defendant’s mark its use will not remain confined to Ranchi and Dhanbad; there is every<\/p>\n
possibility of the defendant extending its business to other parts of the country. The<\/p>\n
apprehension being real and imminent the plaintiffs are entitled to seek protection by way<\/p>\n
of the present suit, which is, in the nature of a quia timet action.<\/p>\n
3.6     It was further contended by Ms Salhotra that the mark is neither generic nor<\/p>\n
descriptive. Assuming that it is descriptive, it was contended that it has become a well<\/p>\n
known mark which traces the origin of the goods and services offered to the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
She stressed that the defendant’s use of the mark is unfair, which is guided by the sole<\/p>\n
purpose of trading on the goodwill acquired by the plaintiffs mark, by deceiving the<\/p>\n
unsuspecting customers. In this regard, she referred to the communication addressed by a<\/p>\n
customer (which is appended as a part of the reply filed by the plaintiffs to the application<\/p>\n
filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC) to demonstrate the confusion<\/p>\n
which is being caused by the defendant’s use of the impugned mark. In support of her<\/p>\n
submissions she cited following judgments:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        Alfred Dunhill Limited vs Kartar Singh Makkar & Ors.<\/a>: 1999 PTC (19)
\n        294; Amritdhara Pharmacy vs Satya Deo Gupta<\/a>: AIR 1963 SC 449 and
\n        DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited vs Laxami Trader & Ors<\/a>:
\n        164(2009) DLT 75
\nCS(OS)2275-2009                                                           Page 8 of 18<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 4.      Mr Sudhir Chandra, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
defendant has, apart from stating the case as set out in the pleadings, stressed upon the<\/p>\n
following submissions:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(i)     the defendant is a prior user. In so far as the plaintiffs are concerned, even though<\/p>\n
        a user is claimed since 2002, there is no invoice filed for the period 2002-03;<\/p>\n
(ii)    the services became registrable under the new Act only in September, 2003,<\/p>\n
        therefore, plaintiff no.2 could have obtained its registration only thereafter. The<\/p>\n
        registrations obtained by the plaintiffs under Class 42, which is the relevant Class,<\/p>\n
        pertains to the period 2005;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(iii)   the plaintiffs are guilty of delay, and suppression of material facts. In this regard<\/p>\n
        particular reference is made to the pendency of rectification proceedings. It was<\/p>\n
        thus urged that the injunction granted ought to be vacated in view of the settled<\/p>\n
        position that while granting injunction, the Court exercises equitable jurisdiction;<\/p>\n
(iv)    the plaintiffs’ invoices for the period 2004 were forged and fabricated as they<\/p>\n
        referred to the fact that they had been issued by \u2017Kaya Limited’ which came into<\/p>\n
        existence only in December, 2007;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(v)     no case for infringement of trademark was made out as the defendant was not in<\/p>\n
        the same line of business, which is a sine qua non for establishing infringement<\/p>\n
        under the provisions of Section 29(1) of the Trade Marks Act. He, however, fairly<\/p>\n
        submitted that an injunction may also be granted if there is similarity of marks<\/p>\n
        without there being a similarity in the rival businesses — provided the ingredients<\/p>\n
        contained in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-Section 4 of Section 29 of the Trade Mark<\/p>\n
        Act stand fulfilled.\n<\/p>\n
\nREASONS<\/p>\n
CS(OS)2275-2009                                                           Page 9 of 18<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 5.     I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As was noticed above by me, the<\/p>\n
dispute essentially relates to the use of word \u2017Kaya’ by the defendant as part of its<\/p>\n
trademark \u2017The Kaya Beauty Salon & Cosmetics’ for its Ranchi outlets, and \u2017The Kaya<\/p>\n
Beauty Salon Cosmetics’ for its Dhanbad outlet.             Plaintiff no.1 has prima facie<\/p>\n
established that it has registrations in its favour, in various classes i.e., Classes 5, 10 and<\/p>\n
16, which relate back to October-December, 2002.              Similarly, plaintiff no.2 has<\/p>\n
registration in Classes 3 and 16 which are operative from 06.05.2003, and also<\/p>\n
registration in Classes 42 and 41, which relate back to the period 06.04.2005 and<\/p>\n
04.08.2005, respectively. It is also not disputed that services were brought within the<\/p>\n
fold of the Act i.e., Trade Marks Act, only from September, 2003. The plaintiffs in<\/p>\n
support of their case have alluded to the fact that they have 103,50,000 customers with<\/p>\n
outlets in 73 cities. It is also contended that they have applied for registration of the<\/p>\n
trademark \u2017Kaya’ in countries such as Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, U.A.E., Saudi<\/p>\n
Arabia and Egypt.      The figures of sales achieved are backed by the certificate of<\/p>\n
Chartered Accounts \u2015Welling and Associates\u2016.             The certificate of the Chartered<\/p>\n
Accountants seem to suggest that the plaintiffs’ sales turnover includes revenue both<\/p>\n
from sale of products as well as from skin care services offered by them. The year wise<\/p>\n
sales turnover grossed is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                  Total Income Vs ASP<\/p>\n
                                                (Fig in crores)<\/p>\n
                   2003-04     2004-05         2005-06         2006-07         2007-08<\/p>\n
Service Income     4.16        17.13           38.64           53.16           69.49<\/p>\n
Sale of Traded 0.36            1.44            4.08            8.48            11.28
\nproducts<\/p>\n
Other Income       0.02        0.03            0.05            0.03            0.27<\/p>\n
Total Income       4.54        18.60           42.77           61.68           81.04<\/p>\n
ASP                1.89        4.84            6.42            6.58            11.10<\/p>\n
CS(OS)2275-2009                                                            Page 10 of 18<\/span>
\n Total ASP           1.89        4.84            6.42            6.58            11.10<\/p>\n
5.1    In addition, the plaintiff no.2 has filed five invoices of the following dates:-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
(i) 01.01.2004; (ii) 03.01.2005; (iii) 02.06.2006; (iv) 03.01.2008; and (v) 05.01.2008<\/p>\n
5.2    From at least three invoices it is noticed that the CST No. 0277259 has been<\/p>\n
obtained on 24.12.2003. Mr Chandra made a pointed reference to the fact that there is<\/p>\n
only one invoice of 2004 and significantly, there is no invoice for the period 2002-03.<\/p>\n
This assertion of Mr Chandra will have to be examined in the context of facts which have<\/p>\n
emerged qua both the plaintiffs and the defendant.            In so far as plaintiff no.2 is<\/p>\n
concerned, it is quite obvious that it could not have had an invoice prior to 27.03.2003<\/p>\n
since that was a date on which it was incorporated. There is, however, reference to the<\/p>\n
auditor’s certificate, which refers to income of the plaintiffs for the year 2003-04 and<\/p>\n
thereafter. It is quite obvious that the sales revenue figures for the period 2003-04 relate<\/p>\n
to both plaintiff no.1 as well as plaintiff no.2. The other point to be noted is that in the<\/p>\n
rejoinder filed by the defendant to the reply of the plaintiff to its application under Order<\/p>\n
39 Rule 4 CPC, the defendant for the first time brought to fore another cease and desist<\/p>\n
notice dated 26.10.2005; evidently issued by the plaintiff.            During the course of<\/p>\n
arguments Ms Salhotra did not dispute the veracity of the said document. If one were to<\/p>\n
assume that the said document is genuine (an issue which at least the defendant cannot<\/p>\n
raise) it would have to be accepted at least at this stage that the assertions of the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
in the said cease and desist notice of 26.10.2005 to the effect that: the defendant had been<\/p>\n
using the mark \u2017Kaya’ since January, 2005; that plaintiff no. 1 at least, has been in<\/p>\n
business three years prior to the date of issuance of the notice; and that they are in the<\/p>\n
business of rendering services; are correct. This notice, as also the cease and desist<\/p>\n
notice dated 06.03.2007 issued by the plaintiffs was curiously not replied to by the<\/p>\n
defendant. In these circumstances, the defendant’s contention that it has been using the<\/p>\n
CS(OS)2275-2009                                                             Page 11 of 18<\/span>
\n impugned mark since 01.04.2002 seems prima facie unsustainable. Therefore, in view of<\/p>\n
the fact that both sides have claimed priority of use, this is an issue on which evidence<\/p>\n
would have to be led. Prima facie, plaintiff no 1’s case that it has been using the mark<\/p>\n
since 2002 at this stage seems eminently plausible. This is so for the reason: firstly, there<\/p>\n
is an averment to that effect; secondly, the averment is backed by a sales turnover of<\/p>\n
some substance (Rs 1.89 crores) for the period 2003-04. For a sales of this magnitude to<\/p>\n
occur there would have been some use of the mark in the preceding period i.e., in 2002-<\/p>\n
03. On a comparative assessment the plaintiffs’ case appears to have a ring of truth.<\/p>\n
6.      The other issue is whether the plaintiff’s mark has achieved secondary distinctive<\/p>\n
meaning. This becomes relevant as the defendant has claimed that she is not in the same<\/p>\n
line of business as that of plaintiff no.1. The other issue which requires consideration is<\/p>\n
whether the use of the impugned mark by the defendant is unfair and detrimental to the<\/p>\n
interest of the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
\n6.1     In my view, prima facie the plaintiffs have been able to establish that the use of<\/p>\n
the mark \u2017Kaya’ has attained distinctiveness qua its goods. This is apparent at this stage<\/p>\n
from the following:        While the plaintiffs have adverted to both; the sales revenue<\/p>\n
achieved by it for the period 2003-04 to 2007-08, and also the amounts spent on<\/p>\n
advertisements — the defendant curiously has not made any reference either to the<\/p>\n
revenue earned or the amount spent on advertisements by her. By far the plaintiffs have<\/p>\n
spent huge amount of monies on advertisements. It is clear, and I have no reason to<\/p>\n
disbelieve at this stage, that its advertisement spend has increased from Rs 1.89 crores in<\/p>\n
2003-04 to Rs. 11.10 crores in 2007-08. Similarly, the sales revenue has increased from<\/p>\n
Rs 4.54 crores in 2003-04 to Rs 81.04 crores in 2007-08. The sales revenue includes<\/p>\n
income from services rendered. In 2003-04 income from services rendered was Rs 4.16<\/p>\n
crores, which in 2007-08 had increased to Rs 69.49 crores. Whether such sales and<\/p>\n
advertisement     spends      actually translated   into   the   plaintiff’s    mark   obtaining<\/p>\n
distinctiveness would be finally determined after further corroborative evidence is led by
\nCS(OS)2275-2009                                                                Page 12 of 18<\/span>
\n the parties in that regard. At this stage at least the said indicators should prima facie<\/p>\n
satisfy the test of distinctiveness. Given these facts any further use of the impugned mark<\/p>\n
by the defendant would not only be unfair but would also cause detriment to the interest<\/p>\n
of the plaintiffs. Therefore, notwithstanding the dissimilarity in the line of business the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs’ plea for injunction will have to be accepted given the similarity in the rival<\/p>\n
marks.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.       On the issue of jurisdiction, I may only note broadly the assertion made in<\/p>\n
Paragraph 24 of the plaint. The plaintiffs have asserted that they are carrying on their<\/p>\n
business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It has been further averred that<\/p>\n
they have their branch office within the jurisdiction of this Court. It has also been<\/p>\n
averred that the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, in as much<\/p>\n
as, the defendant maintains a website the Kaya.com, which is, accessible by the<\/p>\n
customers residing within the jurisdiction of this Court. In support of this it is said that<\/p>\n
the website attracts or is likely to attract the public\/customers residing within the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of this Court for availing services offered by the plaintiffs. It is further<\/p>\n
submitted that the plaintiffs apprehend that the defendant may offer her services within<\/p>\n
the jurisdiction of this Court as the defendant’s application for registration of its mark is<\/p>\n
not restricted to any specific part of the country. The registration, if obtained by the<\/p>\n
defendant, would apply to the entire country which would include the territory falling<\/p>\n
within the jurisdiction of this Court.    At this juncture I may also note Mr Chandra’s<\/p>\n
submission in support of the defendant’s plea for return of the plaint on the ground of<\/p>\n
lack of jurisdiction. It was contended that the plaintiffs having failed to make out a case<\/p>\n
for infringement; a passing off action, if at all, could have been filed and that too only<\/p>\n
where the defendant resides or carries on its business. As regards the accessibility of the<\/p>\n
defendant’s website from within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, he contended<\/p>\n
that the same was not \u2017interactive’ and hence, this Court did not have jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
entertain or try the matter. In support of this submission he relied upon the judgment of<\/p>\n
CS(OS)2275-2009                                                           Page 13 of 18<\/span>
\n the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited vs A<\/p>\n
Murali Krishna Reddy and Anr CS<\/a>(OS) No. 894\/2008 dated 23.11.2009.<\/p>\n
7.1     In my view, the issue of jurisdiction in the present case is a mixed question of fact<\/p>\n
and law. The plaintiffs’ action is for both infringement of its registered trade mark as<\/p>\n
well as for passing off. Prima facie the plaintiffs’ registrations appear to be in order.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the averment made in the plaint with respect to the fact that the plaintiffs carry<\/p>\n
on their business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court through its branch office,<\/p>\n
if accepted, as it ought to be at this stage, would trigger the provisions of Section 134(2)<\/p>\n
of the Trade Marks Act. In these circumstances, the suit cannot be thrown out on the<\/p>\n
ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction at the threshold. As regards the assertions made<\/p>\n
in regard to accessibility of the defendant’s website by consumers\/customers from within<\/p>\n
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court; the state of law as it obtains today, prima facie<\/p>\n
seem to indicate that the averments made therein are not sufficient. To that extent, I am<\/p>\n
in agreement with the submission made in that behalf by Mr Chandra. In Banyan Tree<\/p>\n
(supra), the Division Bench of this Court has clearly opined that in order to demonstrate<\/p>\n
that the forum Court has a jurisdiction it would have to be prima facie established by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs that the defendant \u2017purposefully’ availed of the jurisdiction of this Court. In<\/p>\n
that behalf, the plaintiffs would have to show that the defendant engaged in some<\/p>\n
\u2015commercial activity\u2016 in the forum state by specifically targetting consumers within the<\/p>\n
State. Therefore, the plaintiffs would have to \u2015plead and produce\u2016 material to show that<\/p>\n
a \u2015commercial transaction\u2016 was entered into by the defendant with a user of her website<\/p>\n
within the forum State which resulted in an injury or harm to the plaintiffs. The Division<\/p>\n
Bench has specifically observed that \u2015trap transactions\u2016 will not attract the jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
the forum State. These crucial assertions do not find mention in Paragraph 24 of the<\/p>\n
plaint. However, in view of the fact that the plaintiffs has asserted that they carry on<\/p>\n
business within the jurisdiction of this Court, as noticed above, this objection cannot be<\/p>\n
sustained at least at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
CS(OS)2275-2009                                                            Page 14 of 18<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
  8.     On the issue of delay and acquiescence: it is the contention of the defendant that<\/p>\n
 not only did the plaintiffs suppress the fact that a rectification application had been filed<\/p>\n
 and that a cease and desist notice had been issued by them on 06.03.2007; they also<\/p>\n
 inordinately delayed the institution of the present suit uptil 2009.         Therefore, the<\/p>\n
 plaintiffs’ prayer for an injunction ought not to be granted since such like reliefs are<\/p>\n
 granted by the Court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction. In my view, the objection as<\/p>\n
 regards the suppression of material facts and delay is intertwined. As observed by me it<\/p>\n
 now transpires that plaintiff no.2 had issued another cease and desist notice dated<\/p>\n
 26.10.2005. The notice was addressed to the defendant at its Ranchi outlet. It is not<\/p>\n
 disputed by the defendant that the Dhanbad outlet was opened only in 2009. In the cease<\/p>\n
 and desist notice dated 26.10.2005 plaintiff no.2 has made three important assertions.<\/p>\n
 (i)    that it has been in business for more than three years;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 (ii)   that it has come to their notice that defendant has been using the mark \u2017Kaya’<\/p>\n
        since January, 2005; and<\/p>\n
(iii)   that its marks \u2017Kaya’ and \u2017Kaya Skin Clinic’ have acquired goodwill and<\/p>\n
reputation which has been eroded by the defendant by using a similar mark in the same<\/p>\n
class of goods and services. It is not disputed that the defendant did not reply to the cease<\/p>\n
and desist notice. It is also come through that the defendant immediately thereafter on<\/p>\n
14.12.2005 applied for registration of its mark. The said mark was advertised in the Trade<\/p>\n
Mark Journal admittedly on 01.07.2007.         The plaintiffs assert that the journal was<\/p>\n
available in October, 2007 and opposition in that regard was filed on 18.12.2007.<\/p>\n
Therefore, by not replying to this notice, the defendant seems to have at least prima facie<\/p>\n
accepted the fact that: it has been in business only since January, 2005; plaintiffs on the<\/p>\n
other hand have been in business for a period of three years prior to the issuance of<\/p>\n
notice; and lastly, the plaintiffs are in the business of rendering services as well. As<\/p>\n
regards the fact that they have been in business for more than three years it perhaps will<\/p>\n
 CS(OS)2275-2009                                                           Page 15 of 18<\/span>
\n also have to be borne in mind that prior to March, 2003 it was only plaintiff no.1 who was<\/p>\n
in business. In the circumstances noticed above, it cannot be said that there was delay on<\/p>\n
the part of the plaintiffs in taking requisite action, keeping in mind the fact that as soon as<\/p>\n
the defendant’s application was advertised, the plaintiffs filed its opposition. In case of a<\/p>\n
registered mark mere delay by itself cannot oust the court’s jurisdiction in granting relief<\/p>\n
to the plaintiffs if it is otherwise entitled to it [see Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd vs<\/p>\n
Sudhir Bhatia<\/a> (2004) 3 SCC 90, Hindustan Pencil (P) Ltd. vs India Stationery Products<\/p>\n
Co. & Anr.<\/a> 38 (1989) DLT 54; and Bihar Tubes Ltd vs Garg Ispat Ltd<\/a> 2009 (41) PTC<\/p>\n
(Del) 741]. As asserted by the plaintiffs it did not rush to Court in view of the fact that it<\/p>\n
had already filed an opposition with respect to the defendant’s outlet in Ranchi. No<\/p>\n
sooner did the defendant open an outlet in 2009, in Dhanbad, the plaintiffs issued a cease<\/p>\n
and desist notice on 18.11.2009, which was followed by the institution of the present suit.<\/p>\n
In my view the delay, if any, cannot in the facts and circumstances come in the way of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs approaching the Court for grant of an appropriate interim order.<\/p>\n
9.      Furthermore, in my opinion, there is no acquiescence on the part of the plaintiffs,<\/p>\n
since the plaintiffs filed their opposition, as noticed above, as far back as on 18.12.2007;<\/p>\n
which is pending adjudication.     In my view, therefore, even this objection raised by the<\/p>\n
defendant is not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.     On the issue of suppression of the rectification proceedings which the defendant<\/p>\n
claims to have filed on 26.11.2009, the plaintiffs have asserted that no notice has been<\/p>\n
issued to them in regard to the same. There is nothing brought on record by the defendant<\/p>\n
to demonstrate to the contrary. The fact that it is on the website by itself would not suffice<\/p>\n
because for many reasons it could have escaped plaintiffs’ notice. The plaint, it appears,<\/p>\n
was verified on 30.11.2009 and moved before the Court for orders on 02.12.2009. In my<\/p>\n
opinion, there is nothing to show that the plaintiffs deliberately concealed this fact from<\/p>\n
the Court even assuming that the information with regard to the filing of the rectification<\/p>\n
application was available on the website of the trademark registry.
\n CS(OS)2275-2009                                                            Page 16 of 18<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 11.      As regards the other allegation that the cease and desist notice dated 06.03.2007<\/p>\n
was not disclosed, the plaintiffs explanation that because of the change in the personnel<\/p>\n
the notice did not surface; seems plausible. It may only be noticed that even the defendant<\/p>\n
referred to the cease and desist notice of 26.10.2005 only in its rejoinder to the reply filed<\/p>\n
by the plaintiffs to the defendant’s application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC. No<\/p>\n
motive can be attributed to either the plaintiffs or the defendant. In any event, as rightly<\/p>\n
contended by Ms Salhotra the non-disclosure of the cease and desist notice was not<\/p>\n
material in the facts of this case, as the defendant’s application for registration was<\/p>\n
advertised; whereupon the plaintiffs filed their opposition with the Registrar of Trade<\/p>\n
Marks on 18.12.2007. The fact that the defendant opened another outlet at Dhanbad in<\/p>\n
2009 gave the plaintiffs a fresh cause of action to move the Court.<\/p>\n
12.     It has also been contended that this Court, in view of the pendency of the<\/p>\n
rectification application, ought to have stayed the suit in the first instance, before<\/p>\n
considering the application for grant of interim relief. On a bare perusal of Section 124,<\/p>\n
this submission seems untenable. I do not find any such mandate contained in Section 124<\/p>\n
of the Trade Marks Act which requires the Court to first stay the suit, and then proceed to<\/p>\n
consider the interlocutory application for grant of ad interim injunction. This objection is,<\/p>\n
accordingly, rejected.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.     Let me now deal with the judgments cited by Mr Chandra. The judgment in the<\/p>\n
case of BDA Private Limited vs Paul P. John & Anr.<\/a>: 2008 (37) PTC 569(Del.) in my<\/p>\n
view is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the plaintiff had filed two suits; one in<\/p>\n
2008, which was based on a tort of passing off and the other in 2007, after obtaining<\/p>\n
registration of its mark and thus included allegations of infringement. The Court noted<\/p>\n
the fact that the defendant’s use of the mark since 1995-96 was disclosed only in the<\/p>\n
subsequent suit, and that, had it been disclosed in the earlier suit, interim injunction may<\/p>\n
not have been granted. These are the facts which are not parimateria with the facts<\/p>\n
obtaining in the present case. The case, in my view, is distinguishable.
\nCS(OS)2275-2009                                                            Page 17 of 18<\/span>
\n 13.1   Similarly, the judgment of this Court in the case of Pfizer Enterprises and Anr vs<\/p>\n
Dr H R Manchanda and Anr.CS<\/a>(OS) 641\/2007 dated 16.07.2008 is also distinguishable.<\/p>\n
The facts of the case were briefly as follows: the plaintiff invoked the jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
Court under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act on the ground that their product was<\/p>\n
available for sale and distribution in Delhi as also on the ground that defendant’s product<\/p>\n
was available for sale in Delhi. The Court in Paragraph 18 at page 10 noticed that neither<\/p>\n
the plaintiff nor the defendant had their business in Delhi. This is quite distinct from the<\/p>\n
assertion made in the plaint in the present case. The plaintiff in the present case has<\/p>\n
invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under sub-Section 2 of Section 134. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
ratio of the decision in the case of Pfizer Enterprises (supra) is inapplicable.<\/p>\n
14.    For the reasons given hereinabove, the injunction granted on 02.12.2009 is made<\/p>\n
absolute. Accordingly, IA No. 15565\/2009 is allowed, while IA No. 16243\/2009 filed by<\/p>\n
the defendant is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                              RAJIV SHAKDHER, J<\/p>\n
APRIL 07, 2010
\nmb<\/p>\n
CS(OS)2275-2009                                                           Page 18 of 18<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Marico Limited And Another vs Madhu Gupta on 7 April, 2010 Author: Rajiv Shakdher THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 07.04.2010 IA No.15565\/2009 & IA No. 16243\/2009 in CS(OS) No. 2275\/2009 MARICO LIMITED & ANR ….. PLAINTIFFS Vs MADHU GUPTA ….. DEFENDANT Advocates who appeared in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26768","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMarico Limited And Another vs Madhu Gupta on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Marico Limited And Another vs Madhu Gupta on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-17T23:59:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Marico Limited And Another vs Madhu Gupta on 7 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-17T23:59:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5924,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Marico Limited And Another vs Madhu Gupta on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-17T23:59:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Marico Limited And Another vs Madhu Gupta on 7 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Marico Limited And Another vs Madhu Gupta on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Marico Limited And Another vs Madhu Gupta on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-17T23:59:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Marico Limited And Another vs Madhu Gupta on 7 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-17T23:59:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010"},"wordCount":5924,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010","name":"Marico Limited And Another vs Madhu Gupta on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-17T23:59:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marico-limited-and-another-vs-madhu-gupta-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Marico Limited And Another vs Madhu Gupta on 7 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26768","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26768"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26768\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26768"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26768"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26768"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}