Bombay High Court grants interim relief to NATURAL Ice Cream in Rs 150 crore trademark infringement suit

The Bombay High Court on Monday granted interim relief in favour of Natural Ice Cream in a Rs. 150 crore trademark infringement suit (Siddhant Icecreams LLP & Ors v. Natural Ice Cream & Anr.).The Court restrained the defendant, a Vadodara based entity from using the mark NATURAL as part of business name or trading style..The Plaintiffs, Siddhant Icecreams LLP and Kamaths Ourtimes Icecreams Pvt Ltd promoted and founded by the third plaintiff Raghunandan Srinivas Kamath, are in the business of manufacturing, selling and distributing ice cream and related products through branded ice cream parlours under what they call the NATURAL family of marks. .Kamath submitted that the mark NATURAL was adopted in 1984 and since then they obtained various registrations of the mark and its variants under the Trademark Act. Senior Advocate Viraag Tulzapurkar, appearing for the plaintiffs, submitted that the mark is popular and had]s a large reputation uniquely with the plaintiffs. He submitted the entities have over 130 franchises with an annual turnover for 2019-20 of Rs. 166 crores and cumulative turnover of Rs. 312.7 crores and that the plaintiffs had spent over Rs. 1.46 crores for promotional expenses. .In March 2021, the plaintiffs came across an ice cream parlour in Vadodara using the mark NATURAL. Upon preliminary investigation, the plaintiff found out that that the outlet was owned by a business entity 'Natural Ice Cream' and one Sanman Patel was the proprietor.The plaintiffs observed that the defendants were advertising their ice cream on social media using the rival mark and the parlour signage had a legend - 'since 1992'. .Justice Gautam Patel deduced from the material placed before him that the defendant had no independent right to use the NATURAL mark. Even though the signage said 'since 1992' the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs seemed to be the registered proprietors using the mark which could be traced back to 1984..Satisfied that prima facie case made out by the plaintiffs in the case, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction against the defendants from infringing any of the NATURAL family registered marks or from using NATURAL as part of the defendants' business name or trading style..Justice Patel was also dealing with an "extremely unusual event" in the case before him. The lawyers who entered appearance for the 'defendants' in the case filed a lengthy affidavit in the case signed by Ambrish Chauhan claiming to be the lawful attorney of sole proprietor of Natural Ice Cream & Cold Drinks. Chauhan stated in his affidavit that the outlet in the suit was a franchisee of his proprietorship but the agreement he relied upon seemed to be a contract for sale of products by his proprietorship to Patel's outlet, the Court noted..After perusing the affidavit, Justice Patel noticed that there seemed to be no relation between the two firms and that Chauhan and his proprietorship were not made defendants to the suit."I do not see how the Chauhans or Natural Ice Cream & Cold Drinks have any standing at all before this Court. I do not see how they could have done anything except seek impleadment," Justice Patel noted..Tulzapurkar also did not press for any reliefs against the Chauhans and their proprietorship. He clarified that the injunction was sought against the defendant firm and Patel. Accordingly Justice Patel proceeded to grant ad-interim relief which will operate till September 9, 2021 unless vacated earlier by the Court. .While the Court was dictating the order, a lawyer on behalf of Patel interrupted the same claiming that he will be entering the vakalatnama on behalf of the defendant firm and Patel and requested the Court to defer the order for some time. .Disappointed at the conduct of the parties, Justice Patel stated that a minimal amount of care and attention to detail is required from them."This is not how I expect parties to conduct their affairs in matters before this, or, for that matter, any Court. A minimal amount of care and attention to detail is required," Justice Patel remarked. .He also admonished the lawyer appearing for Chauhans for having filed a lengthy affidavit."Instead of annexing one invoice after another invoice and bulking up affidavits to 300 and 400 pages, the Chauhans and their Advocates might have been better advised to focus their attention and energies on matters of consequence," Justice Patel stated..Having said so, Justice Patel clarified in his order that he has made "no order today against the Chauhan or his principal and their proprietorship firm. .Tulzapurkar appeared along with Advocate Hiren Kamod instructed by ABH Law LLP for the Plaintiffs.Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf with Advocates Mayur Khandeparkar, Kunal Kanungo, Himanshu Deora, Rahul Panjabi and S Venkateshwar appeared for Chauhans and their proprietorship.Advocate Shashwat Bakshe, instructed by KC Patel appeared for Defendants..[Read order]