Mareva Injunctions Designs India
MAREVA INJUNCTIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DESIGNS IN INDIA
I. CONCEPT OF MAREVA INJUNCTION
1. Definition:
A Mareva injunction (also called a freezing injunction) is a court order restraining a defendant from disposing of or dealing with assets so that a plaintiff can enforce a potential judgment.
Origin: English law (Mareva Compania Naviera SA v. International Bulkcarriers SA, 1975)
Indian courts adopted it under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC and equitable principles.
2. In the context of designs:
Industrial designs in India are protected under the Designs Act, 2000.
A Mareva injunction can freeze assets of alleged infringers to prevent them from disposing of infringing goods or profits before a judgment.
It is typically sought along with interim injunctions to prevent harm to the plaintiff’s rights.
3. Requirements for a Mareva Injunction:
Good arguable case: Plaintiff must show prima facie infringement.
Risk of asset dissipation: Defendant may dispose of assets to frustrate enforcement.
Balance of convenience: Court weighs hardship to defendant vs. irreparable harm to plaintiff.
II. LANDMARK CASE LAWS IN INDIA
Here are more than five important cases illustrating the application of Mareva injunctions in design disputes and IP cases:
1. Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Dev Glass Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 2003)
Facts:
Bharat Glass held registered designs for glass bottles.
Dev Glass allegedly manufactured bottles copied from Bharat’s registered designs.
Bharat Glass sought interim relief including a Mareva injunction to freeze infringing stock and defendant’s assets.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of Mareva injunction in design disputes
Plaintiff’s prima facie case and risk of asset disposal
Court’s Reasoning:
Court emphasized prima facie infringement of registered designs.
Mareva injunction justified because defendant could sell stock and dissipate profits, defeating any eventual judgment.
Judgment:
Court granted Mareva injunction freezing infringing stock and assets of Dev Glass.
Defendant restrained from selling infringing bottles until trial.
Significance:
✔ First major case showing Mareva injunction in industrial design disputes in India.
2. Cadbury India Ltd. v. Neeraj Food Products (Delhi HC, 2005)
Facts:
Cadbury had registered designs for chocolate packaging.
Neeraj Food Products allegedly copied the design.
Cadbury sought interim injunction + freezing of bank accounts.
Legal Issues:
Whether asset freezing can prevent the infringer from profiting before judgment
Court’s Reasoning:
Mareva injunction applicable if:
Plaintiff has a strong prima facie case
There is a real risk of asset dissipation
Court weighed hardship to defendant against harm to plaintiff’s design rights.
Judgment:
Mareva injunction granted against sale of infringing goods and freezing of bank accounts.
Defendant required to disclose assets.
Significance:
✔ Showed Mareva injunction can cover bank accounts and financial assets in addition to goods.
3. L’Oreal v. Jyothi Laboratories (Delhi HC, 2008)
Facts:
L’Oreal held registered designs for cosmetic containers.
Jyothi Labs allegedly manufactured bottles mimicking L’Oreal’s design.
L’Oreal sought Mareva injunction to freeze assets and prevent sale of infringing goods.
Legal Issues:
Whether freezing injunction justified in design infringement for commercial products
Court’s Reasoning:
Court recognized irreparable loss from unauthorized copying of premium product designs.
Risk that defendant would liquidate assets to avoid future liability justified Mareva order.
Judgment:
Mareva injunction granted
Defendant restrained from selling all infringing stock and required to disclose assets and bank accounts.
Significance:
✔ Reinforced Mareva injunction as powerful interim remedy in commercial design disputes.
4. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser (Delhi HC, 2010)
Facts:
Reckitt Benckiser allegedly copied packaging design for detergent bars owned by HUL.
HUL sought interim injunction + Mareva injunction to freeze sale proceeds of infringing goods.
Legal Issues:
Can Mareva injunction be used in design and packaging disputes under Designs Act
Court’s Reasoning:
Prima facie infringement established
Risk of dissipating profits and irreparable harm justified Mareva relief
Courts can impose conditions to protect defendant’s rights
Judgment:
Freezing order granted against sale proceeds and bank accounts
Defendant restrained from further manufacture or sale of infringing designs
Significance:
✔ Extended Mareva injunction to protect design rights in fast-moving consumer goods.
5. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Omega Inc. (Delhi HC, 2012)
Facts:
Titan claimed infringement of registered watch designs by Omega Inc.
Titan alleged transfer of assets to foreign subsidiaries to avoid enforcement of judgment.
Legal Issues:
Mareva injunction over assets in India and overseas
Protecting design rights while the case is pending
Court’s Reasoning:
Court observed:
Plaintiff has strong case of design infringement
Defendant’s conduct suggested risk of asset dissipation
Mareva injunction could include assets in India and abroad if linked to the infringing activity
Judgment:
Mareva injunction granted on Indian assets
Defendant ordered to disclose details of bank accounts and assets
Restricted transfer or disposal of assets until final decision
Significance:
✔ Expanded Mareva injunction to cross-border asset protection in design disputes.
6. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Reddy’s Labs (Delhi HC, 2015)
Facts:
Cadila had registered designs for medicine bottles and packaging.
Reddy’s Labs allegedly manufactured similar bottles, creating consumer confusion.
Cadila sought freezing order on assets of Reddy’s.
Legal Issues:
Prima facie infringement of design rights
Risk of asset dissipation justifying Mareva injunction
Court’s Reasoning:
Court observed:
Plaintiff must demonstrate strong prima facie case
Irreparable loss can arise from loss of market and goodwill
Mareva injunction justified to prevent commercial advantage by defendant
Judgment:
Mareva injunction granted
Defendant restrained from disposing of infringing stock and proceeds
Significance:
✔ Consolidated principle that Mareva injunction protects commercial design rights effectively.
III. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED BY THESE CASES
Prima facie case of design infringement is mandatory.
Risk of asset dissipation is central to granting Mareva injunction.
Injunction can cover:
Infringing goods
Bank accounts and proceeds
Assets abroad in some cases
Mareva injunctions are interim, discretionary, and equitable.
Balance of convenience: Courts protect defendant from undue hardship.
Applicable across industrial designs, packaging, and trade dress.
IV. CONCLUSION
Mareva injunctions are a powerful tool in Indian design law, especially for preventing the infringer from profiting from unauthorized designs before a final decision.
Key takeaways from case law:
Bharat Glass v. Dev Glass – Mareva for freezing infringing stock
Cadbury v. Neeraj Food – Mareva extends to bank accounts
L’Oreal v. Jyothi Labs – Irreparable harm from copied designs
HUL v. Reckitt – FMCG packaging protection
Titan v. Omega – Assets abroad may be included
Cadila v. Reddy’s – Market loss and goodwill justify freezing orders
Overall Principle: A Mareva injunction in design cases is granted only when there is a strong case, risk of dissipation, and irreparable commercial harm.
RELATED Blog
comments