In a major legal decision, the Bombay High Court has imposed a substantial penalty of Rs 50 lakh on Premier Stationery Industries for violating the trademark rights of Fevicol, a prominent adhesive product made by Pidilite Industries.The court found Premier Stationery Industries guilty of producing and selling adhesive products that closely resembled Fevicol, including bottles and glue guns designed to mimic the renowned brand’s distinctive packaging and appearance.
This decision underscores the court’s commitment to protecting intellectual property rights and upholding brand integrity in the face of trademark violations. The bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla fined Premier, noting that the company had violated a 2017 order directing them to refrain from manufacturing lookalikes of Fevicol.
High Court Slams Premier Stationery for Trademark Infringement
The order came after Pidilite approached the court, citing that instead of using the labels and bottles that had been agreed upon, Fevicol lookalike products from Premier had re-entered the market.
The High Court’s ruling highlighted the respondents’ failure to express any form of apology, demonstrating a clear lack of remorse or acknowledgment of their violation of court orders. Pidilite Industries, known for its prominent brands such as Fevicol, Fevicryl, Fevistick, and Fevi Kwik, had accused Premier Stationery Industries of intentionally flouting its intellectual property rights by persistently using packaging and labelling that infringed upon Pidilite’s established trademarks.
Premier Stationery’s Defense Rejected
Premier Stationery Industries contended that they had acquired the company after the 2017 court order was issued and were therefore unaware of the specific terms of the agreement with Pidilite. They argued that this acquisition should exempt them from compliance with the previous court ruling.
However, the High Court scrutinised this defence and noted that both the previous and current ownership of Premier were closely connected. The court found substantial evidence indicating that Premier had provided misleading statements and engaged in intentional defiance of the court’s orders, thereby demonstrating a clear and deliberate disregard for the legal obligations imposed.
