Free Judgments

Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Laverana Gmbh And Co.Kg & Anr. on 28 January, 2016

1. Considering the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed,
the learned Single Judge has decided IA No.18151/2012 filed by the
respondent seeking interim injunction against the appellant pending
disposal of the suit as also IA No.19804/2013 filed by the respondent
praying that the ex-parte interim order dated September 28, 2012 should
be vacated. It is apparent that the decision is in favour of the respondent
and against the appellant.
2. Issue concerns respondent’s trademark LAVERA : a latin word
meaning ‘the truth’. The respondent claims that registered as a limited
liability company in Germany it adopted the trademark LAVERA in early
1980 as an arbitrary word mark in connection with cosmetic product and
the product was marketed for the first time in Germany in the year 1982.
The product has been marketed world over in various countries. The
mark has been registered in several countries namely Germany, Denmark,
Hong Kong, Italy, France, Japan, Singapore and Ireland. It was pending
FAO (OS) No.194/2015 Page 1 of 10
registration in India under No.1863388. As per the respondent due to
extensive worldwide use of the mark and sale of the cosmetic products
the mark has earned goodwill and reputation. The respondent’s products
are freely available on e-bay and online stores. Respondent claims that
sale figures for the years between 2007 till 2011 range between 74,76,500
euros to 1,15,27,839 euros. As per the respondent it has domain name
registration for the mark LAVERA such as www.lavera.com,
www.lavera.d, www.lavera.in, www.lavera.jp, www.lavera.cz,
www.lavera.eu and www.lavera.ca. Respondent claims that people from
India travelling abroad are exposed to its products apart from exposure
thereto through the internet. Respondent claims that it learnt of appellant
using the mark MAC’S LAVERA in September, 2010 when it was
published in the trademark journal No.1441 for purposes of opposition, to
which application the respondent filed an opposition.

Source: Indian Kanoon

juris