- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bombay HC grants interim injunction to HUL against Emami’s threat on its trademark ‘Glow & Handsome’
FMCG Major Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (HUL) has knocked on the doors of the Bombay High Court seeking injunction against Emami Ltd. as the latter was threatening legal action on trademark violations against HUL after HUL renamed two of its popular products – ‘Fair & Lovely’ and ‘Men’s Fair & Lovely’.The petition by HUL sought that it should be given at least seven days...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
FMCG Major Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (HUL) has knocked on the doors of the Bombay High Court seeking injunction against Emami Ltd. as the latter was threatening legal action on trademark violations against HUL after HUL renamed two of its popular products – ‘Fair & Lovely’ and ‘Men’s Fair & Lovely’.
The petition by HUL sought that it should be given at least seven days notice before Emami initiates any legal proceedings on trademark. The Bombay High Court granted this interim relief.
HUL termed Emami’s threats of legal action as baseless, as HUL had already adopted and was the user of the trademark.
Incidentally, Emami had launched ‘Glow & Handsome’ digitally one week before HUL had announced the name change and therefore, Emami threatened legal action against HUL.
HUL in its petition claimed that it had applied for trademark of the names with the Controller General of Patents Design & Trade Marks, under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry way back in Sept-Oct 2018 which was denied in July 2019. The company further stated that it re-applied for these names on 17 June and 25 June, 2020 respectively. In the order, HUL further stated that the announcement was made on 2 July for the name change and permission to sell the product under the new name came on 3 July.
HUL added that Emami had made trademark applications after these dates and Emami has so far not launched any product under these names so far.
The Bombay High Court after hearing preliminary arguments observed that “prima facie” it does appear that HUL was the prior adopter of the mark as it had filed its trade mark application first in September 2018 and subsequently on 25 June 2020. “The statements made by the defendant (Emami) do amount to a threat, however, whether they are unlawful or groundless, that is something that will have to be decided after hearing both the sides,” the court said.
The Court also directed Emami to give HUL seven days prior written notice before initiating legal proceedings against it. The matter has been posted for further hearing on 27 July.