Bombay HC Fines Premier Stationery Rs. 50 Lakhs for Fevicol Trademark Infringement

Bombay HC Fines Premier Stationery Rs. 50 Lakhs for Fevicol Trademark Infringement. Mumbai, September 24, 2024 – In a significant legal development, Premier Stationery Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its associated companies have been fined 50 lakhs by the Bombay High Court for violating a previous court order in the Fevicol trademark case. The lawsuit was initiated by Pidilite Industries, the renowned owner of the Fevicol brand, which accused the stationery company of copying the packaging and branding of its popular glue bottles.
Case Background
The dispute between Premier Stationery Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Pidilite Industries, the owner of the Fevicol brand, began when Pidilite filed a lawsuit against Premier's predecessor company. Pidilite, a market leader in adhesives, claimed that the stationary company had copied the packaging and branding of Fevicol glue bottles. Fevicol is a widely recognized and trusted adhesive product in India, known for its distinctive packaging.
On July 13, 2017, the Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Pidilite Industries, issuing a permanent injunction that prohibited the infringing company from using packaging similar to Fevicol’s. The Court's decision aimed to protect Fevicol’s trademark and prevent consumer confusion over similarly designed products.
Later that year, Premier Stationery Industries acquired the company that had violated the trademark. As the new owner, Premier Stationery was obligated to comply with the 2017 injunction. However, in August 2020, Premier Stationery resumed using packaging similar to that of Fevicol, despite the Court’s previous ruling.
Pidilite Industries, upon noticing the continued infringement, filed contempt of court proceedings against Premier Stationery. The contempt claim was based on Premier’s blatant disregard for the Court’s injunction and its deliberate use of Fevicol-like packaging. This led to the recent ruling where the Bombay High Court fined Premier Stationery ?50 lakhs and imposed additional penalties to enforce compliance.
Premier Stationery Industries Pvt. Ltd. Fined ?50 Lakhs for Contempt in Fevicol Trademark Case
The legal dispute dates back to July 13, 2017, when the Court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Premier Stationery's predecessor from using packaging similar to that of Fevicol. Despite the ruling, Premier Stationery, which acquired the infringing company later in 2017, resumed using the infringing packaging in August 2020. This blatant disregard for the court's orders prompted Pidilite Industries to file contempt proceedings against the company.
During the hearing, Justice RI Chagla noted that Premier Stationery had clearly violated the court's previous order, thereby committing contempt. In response to this serious breach, the Court imposed a hefty fine of ?50 lakhs. Justice Chagla stated that, in addition to potential civil imprisonment, a substantial financial penalty was necessary to purge the contempt.
The Court further directed Premier Stationery to immediately cease using the infringing packaging and destroy any remaining products that bear the disputed branding. It also issued a stern warning, cautioning that any further noncompliance with the order could result in additional legal consequences, including the possibility of civil imprisonment.
Pidilite Industries, a leader in the adhesive market, has aggressively defended its intellectual property rights, particularly its iconic Fevicol brand, which enjoys widespread recognition in India. This ruling underscores the importance of trademark protection and compliance with court orders.
Sections governing the Infringement 
Section 29 of the Trademark Act deals with the infringement of a registered trademark. It lays down the situations where the use of a mark by a third party would be considered an infringement. The essential conditions under this section are:

Unauthorized Use of the Mark: A registered trademark is infringed when a person, who is not the owner of the trademark, uses it without permission.

Identical or Similar Mark: If the infringing mark is identical to or deceptively similar to the registered trademark, it will be considered an infringement. Even if the mark is not identical but closely resembles the registered trademark to the point of causing confusion among the public, it is regarded as an infringement.

Same or Similar Goods/Services: Infringement occurs if the infringing mark is used on goods or services that are the same or similar to those for which the trademark has been registered.

Likelihood of Confusion: If the use of the mark is likely to cause confusion or association with the registered trademark in the minds of the public, it constitutes infringement. This includes creating an impression of a false association between the two goods or services.

Dilution of Trademark: Even if the infringing mark is used for unrelated goods or services, it can still be considered infringement if the registered trademark has a strong reputation, and its unauthorized use causes dilution or damages its distinctive character.

Section 134 of the Trademark Act deals with jurisdiction of courts in cases of trademark infringement and passing off. This section is important because it clarifies where a trademark holder can file a lawsuit for infringement.
1. Exclusive Jurisdiction: A suit for infringement or passing off can be filed only in a District Court or a High Court that has jurisdiction.
2. Place of Filing: The trademark owner has the right to file the suit in the court of the district where:

The plaintiff (the owner of the trademark) resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain; or

The defendant resides or carries on business, or where the infringing activities took place.

This provision allows the trademark owner to file a lawsuit in a location that is convenient to them rather than the defendant.
1. Corporate Plaintiffs: In the case of corporate entities, the lawsuit can be filed where the company’s registered office or principal place of business is located.
2. No Requirement of Defendant's Presence: Even if the defendant does not reside or carry on business in the place where the trademark owner resides, the suit can still be filed in the trademark owner’s location.
Conclusion
The case serves as a cautionary tale for businesses about the consequences of disregarding legal injunctions and highlights the judiciary's firm stance on intellectual property infringement. For more information, connect with us today at 9988424211 or email us at info@ccoffice.in. Let compliance calendar LLP be your trusted partner in trademark registration and protection.

Mumbai, September 24, 2024 – In a significant legal development, Premier Stationery Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its associated companies have been fined 50 lakhs by the Bombay High Court for violating a previous court order in the Fevicol trademark case. The lawsuit was initiated by Pidilite Industries, the renowned owner of the Fevicol brand, which accused the stationery company of copying the packaging and branding of its popular glue bottles.

Case Background

The dispute between Premier Stationery Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Pidilite Industries, the owner of the Fevicol brand, began when Pidilite filed a lawsuit against Premier's predecessor company. Pidilite, a market leader in adhesives, claimed that the stationary company had copied the packaging and branding of Fevicol glue bottles. Fevicol is a widely recognized and trusted adhesive product in India, known for its distinctive packaging.

On July 13, 2017, the Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Pidilite Industries, issuing a permanent injunction that prohibited the infringing company from using packaging similar to Fevicol’s. The Court's decision aimed to protect Fevicol’s trademark and prevent consumer confusion over similarly designed products.

Later that year, Premier Stationery Industries acquired the company that had violated the trademark. As the new owner, Premier Stationery was obligated to comply with the 2017 injunction. However, in August 2020, Premier Stationery resumed using packaging similar to that of Fevicol, despite the Court’s previous ruling.

Pidilite Industries, upon noticing the continued infringement, filed contempt of court proceedings against Premier Stationery. The contempt claim was based on Premier’s blatant disregard for the Court’s injunction and its deliberate use of Fevicol-like packaging. This led to the recent ruling where the Bombay High Court fined Premier Stationery ?50 lakhs and imposed additional penalties to enforce compliance.

Premier Stationery Industries Pvt. Ltd. Fined ?50 Lakhs for Contempt in Fevicol Trademark Case

The legal dispute dates back to July 13, 2017, when the Court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Premier Stationery's predecessor from using packaging similar to that of Fevicol. Despite the ruling, Premier Stationery, which acquired the infringing company later in 2017, resumed using the infringing packaging in August 2020. This blatant disregard for the court's orders prompted Pidilite Industries to file contempt proceedings against the company.

During the hearing, Justice RI Chagla noted that Premier Stationery had clearly violated the court's previous order, thereby committing contempt. In response to this serious breach, the Court imposed a hefty fine of ?50 lakhs. Justice Chagla stated that, in addition to potential civil imprisonment, a substantial financial penalty was necessary to purge the contempt.

The Court further directed Premier Stationery to immediately cease using the infringing packaging and destroy any remaining products that bear the disputed branding. It also issued a stern warning, cautioning that any further noncompliance with the order could result in additional legal consequences, including the possibility of civil imprisonment.

Pidilite Industries, a leader in the adhesive market, has aggressively defended its intellectual property rights, particularly its iconic Fevicol brand, which enjoys widespread recognition in India. This ruling underscores the importance of trademark protection and compliance with court orders.

Sections governing the Infringement

Section 29 of the Trademark Act deals with the infringement of a registered trademark. It lays down the situations where the use of a mark by a third party would be considered an infringement. The essential conditions under this section are:

Unauthorized Use of the Mark: A registered trademark is infringed when a person, who is not the owner of the trademark, uses it without permission.
Identical or Similar Mark: If the infringing mark is identical to or deceptively similar to the registered trademark, it will be considered an infringement. Even if the mark is not identical but closely resembles the registered trademark to the point of causing confusion among the public, it is regarded as an infringement.
Same or Similar Goods/Services: Infringement occurs if the infringing mark is used on goods or services that are the same or similar to those for which the trademark has been registered.
Likelihood of Confusion: If the use of the mark is likely to cause confusion or association with the registered trademark in the minds of the public, it constitutes infringement. This includes creating an impression of a false association between the two goods or services.
Dilution of Trademark: Even if the infringing mark is used for unrelated goods or services, it can still be considered infringement if the registered trademark has a strong reputation, and its unauthorized use causes dilution or damages its distinctive character.

1. Exclusive Jurisdiction: A suit for infringement or passing off can be filed only in a District Court or a High Court that has jurisdiction.

2. Place of Filing: The trademark owner has the right to file the suit in the court of the district where:

The plaintiff (the owner of the trademark) resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
The defendant resides or carries on business, or where the infringing activities took place.

This provision allows the trademark owner to file a lawsuit in a location that is convenient to them rather than the defendant.

1. Corporate Plaintiffs: In the case of corporate entities, the lawsuit can be filed where the company’s registered office or principal place of business is located.

2. No Requirement of Defendant's Presence: Even if the defendant does not reside or carry on business in the place where the trademark owner resides, the suit can still be filed in the trademark owner’s location.

Conclusion

The case serves as a cautionary tale for businesses about the consequences of disregarding legal injunctions and highlights the judiciary's firm stance on intellectual property infringement. For more information, connect with us today at 9988424211 or email us at info@ccoffice.in. Let compliance calendar LLP be your trusted partner in trademark registration and protection.