Pravin Anand and Achuthan Sreekumar illustrate how limited information isn’t a barrier to stopping an infringing activity
In July 2018, the plaintiffs, through credible market sources, received information that a ship containing large quantities of counterfeit/infringing toothbrushes bearing the brand COLDENT/COLDENT Double Action Toothbrush had left the port of Ningbo, China, and was en route to India.The case, Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr v John Doe & Ors, was filed before Delhi High Court, and heard in the same month.
What was particularly peculiar about this situation was that the plaintiffs did not have clear information regarding the final destination, where the consignment of infringing toothbrushes was being sent to and the plaintiffs also did not know the names or the identity of the importers.This infringement case shows how a lack of information may not hinder its success before the courts.
Anand and Anand represented the plaintiffs and the matter was argued at length. The court was provided with various details such as the names of the ships, container numbers, port details, etc. After hearing the arguments, the court, through an ex-parte order dated 13 July 2018, made the following observations and directions: