How Colgate defended its brand

0
1953
LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link

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.

environment
Pravin Anand

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:

You must be a subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber to read this content, please subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe today.

For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.

你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎注册账号。如果想阅读月刊所有文章,欢迎成为我们的订阅会员成为我们的订阅会员

已有集团订阅,可点击此处继续浏览。
如对集团订阅感兴趣,请联络我们

environmentPravin Anand is the managing partner of Anand and Anand and Achuthan Sreekumar is a partner at the firm. Saif Khan, a partner, and Akshay Agarwal, an associate, also contributed to the article.

LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link