Colgate Palmolive Company v. Arun Vasant Narkar

K.R Shriram, J.:— The followings issues arise in the matter.

1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant and/or any person claiming through and/or under the defendant has infringed the plaintiffs' registered trade mark “Colgate Super Flexi” bearing number 2311964 by the use of the mark “Coolest Smart Flexi” or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trade mark?

2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant and/or any person claiming through and/or under the defendant has infringed the plaintiffs' copyright in its distinctive “Colgate Super Flexi” label/carton at Exhibit B to the Plaint, by the use of the impugned carton and/or any carton/label identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' distinctive carton?

3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant and/or any person claiming through and/or under the defendant has passed off its products as and for that of the plaintiffs?

4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant and/or any person claiming through and/or under the defendant has infringed the plaintiffs' registered design bearing No. 256379?

5) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant and/or any person claiming through and/or under the defendant has passed off its toothbrush as and for that of the plaintiffs?

6) Whether the plaintiffs prove that it is entitled to delivery of the impugned products bearing the impugned mark/label along with the deceptively similar shaped toothbrushes of the defendant?

7) Whether the plaintiffs prove that it is entitled to a decree against the defendant and/or persons claiming through and/or under the defendant in a sum of Rs. 1,01,00,000/- or to any part thereof?

8) Whether the plaintiffs prove that it is entitled to an order and decree against the defendant and/or persons claiming through and/or under the defendant for accounts being taken, and for paying over the plaintiff such amounts as may be found due and payable?

9) Whether the defendant has proved that his product is costly than plaintiffs product and therefore defendant's market segment is separate than that of plaintiffs? If so what are the consequences?

10) What decree? What order?

2. Parties to file their respective affidavit of documents and give complete discovery and inspection of the documents and also exchange statement of admission and denial with reasons for denial on or before 07.03.2017 The plaintiffs to file their list of witnesses, affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the first witness together with compilation of documents and serve a copy thereof upon the defendants by 24.03.2017

3. Stand over to 03.04.2017 for marking of documents/receiving evidence on which date plaintiffs' first witness shall remain present in Court.