Marico Limited v. Manoj Gosai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7060 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 308 OF 2024 Marico Limited ...Applicant/Plaintiff

Versus

Manoj Gosai and Others ...Defendants WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 31231 OF 2024 ------ Mr. Hiren Kamod, Anil Shete, Ms. Niyati Davawal i/b Niyati Davawala for Plaintiff.

Mr. Prashant Aher for Defendant Nos. 6 to 8, 12 to 21. Ms. Rucha Ambekar, Master (Adm.) for Court Receiver present. ------ Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Date : 1st December, 2025.

P. C. :

Interim Application No. 7060 of 2025 :

1.

Interim Application has been preferred by the Plaintiff seeking permission to the Plaintiff to destroy the infringing goods bearing the counterfeit marks which are seized by the Court Receiver as mentioned in the Court Receiver's Report No. 164 of 2025 by removing the seal and retaining few samples of each of the goods for the purpose of trial.

2.

Learned counsel for Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 and 12 to 28 - who 1 of

are retailers have no objection to the Interim Application. 3.

Mr. Kamod, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff tenders the affidavit of service evidencing service upon the Defendant who are the manufacturers of the infringing goods.

4.

The Application specifically pleads that counterfeit goods were seized from the Defendants' premises by making inventory and are kept in the Plaintiff's premises on superdari the inventory of the said goods are set out at Pages 98, 100-102, 118-128, 159-162, 183-188, 216-223 and 234-236. The goods seized include the gunny bags packed with counterfeit products, packaging rolls, machine, cylinders, bottles, stickers and other goods having limited shelf life. Mr. Kamod would submit that these products are otherwise of substandard quality and are deteriorating emanating foul odour making it unviable to keep them stored for long period of time as it may pose health hazard at storage place. He submits that no purpose would be served by preserving counterfeit products and for the purpose of trial, a few samples can be retained by making fresh inventory. 5.

After execution of commission, no reply has been filed by the Defendants. The action was initially in the nature of John Doe action and subsequently the Defendants were identified, who are the manufacturers.

6.

Considering the limited shelf life of the products, which are even 2 of

otherwise counterfeit, and are of substandard quality, no purpose will be served by keeping the seized goods in custody till the hearing and final disposal of suit. For the purpose of trial, few samples of the goods so seized can be retained by making a fresh inventory. 7.

The commission was executed at several locations and the goods were seized which are substantial in number. The goods having limited shelf life, are already deteriorating and as the same are counterfeit, destruction is the only option.

8.

In the light of above, Interim Application is allowed by permitting the Plaintiff to de-seal the infringing goods and destroy the same by making a fresh inventory of destroyed goods and fresh inventory of the retained samples.

9.

Fresh inventory of the destroyed goods to be filed in this Court within a period of four weeks from today.

10.

The Court Receiver stands discharged without passing off accounts. All costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver to be paid by the Plaintiff within a period of 8 weeks of demand being raised by the Office of the Court Receiver.

Interim Application (L) No. 31231 of 2024 :

11.

Stand over to 7th January, 2026.

12.

Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till the next date. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] 3 of