HC slaps ₹50L fine on Delhi firm for Fevicol trademark violation

Bombay HC fines Delhi firm ₹50 lakh for using Fevicol-like trademark despite injunction; orders payment in 4 weeks or face 2 weeks in civil prison.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on August 13 imposed a fine of ₹50 lakh on a Delhi-based firm for using similar trademark of Fevicol and its range of products despite an injunction restraining the company from using anything similar to the said trademark.

HT Image

The single judge bench of justice RI Chagla has directed Kusum Puri Goswami and Rajinder Puri Goswami, associated with Premier Stationery Industries, to pay the amount to Pidilite Industries in four weeks.

Failure to comply with the order would result in their detention in the civil prison for two weeks, the court added.

Besides imposing the fine, the court also criticised Premier Stationery for its lack of remorse and failure to comply with previous orders of the court.

The order came on a contempt petition filed by Pidilite Industries in 2021, complaining about willful disregard and disobedience of the order dated 13 July 2017 passed by the high court on a commercial suit filed by Pidilite Industries.

In the contempt petition filed in 2021, the company claimed that the stationery manufacturer continued to use their trade labels and trade dress, the colour scheme used for some of their Fevicol brand products on glue bottles and glue pens in blatant breach of the consent terms incorporated in the court order.

Premier Stationery Industries and its owner Kusum Puri Goswami replied to the contempt petition, stating that in 2017 they had sold the business to Select Stationery Industries (India) Pvt Ltd, which later renamed itself as Premier Stationery Industries (India) Pvt Ltd, and Kusum’s husband Rajender Puri Goswami.

While Kusum and her company claimed it had not committed any breach of undertaking or consent terms, her husband and his company claimed that they were not aware of the consent terms and the court order. In any case, they said, since they were not parties to the Consent Terms, they, therefore, were not bound by the same or the final order.

The court, however, refused to accept the defence and held both the companies and the couple responsible for breach of the consent terms and liable to purge the contempt by paying a penalty of ₹50 lakh.

“It is well settled that the court ought not to allow its processes to be set at naught and/or breach of its orders by parties such as the respondents and strict action ought to be taken against the Respondents for their mala-fide conduct,” said the court.