26 February 2020 08:56 am
The intellectual property (IP) action filed by Tokyo Cement Company (Lanka) PLC (the plaintiff) against Ceramica Bathrooms (Pvt) Limited, Abdul Salam Abdul Malik and Safreena Salahudeen (the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants) on unfair competition and infringement of trademarks was settled in the Commercial High Court on January 17, 2020.
The settlement was reached when the matter was called before Judge Sampath Wijerathne as Abdul Salam Abdul Malik and Safreena Salahudeen who run a partnership business ‘Ceramica Bathrooms’ gave an undertaking not to use the plaintiff’s IP in the form of the plaintiffs ‘Tokyo’ trademarks, upon which judgment and decree was entered in favour of Tokyo Cement.
The 2nd and 3rd defendants on their behalf and also on behalf of Ceramica Bathrooms (Private) Limited undertook to refrain from using the plaintiff’s ‘Tokyo Superbond’ and ‘Tokyo Super’ Trademarks along with the distinctive shape in the manner depicted in the plaint of the plaintiff.
This settlement was in the backdrop of the plaintiff initiating action before the Commercial High Court and where the Judge having considered the matters placed before court, proceeded to issue an enjoining order ex parte restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff’s trademarks with the distinctive shape as depicted in the defendant’s tile adhesive product’s getup and/or in any misleadingly similar manner to so nearly resemble the plaintiff’s trademarks ‘Tokyo Super’ with the distinctive shape.
Thereafter when the 2nd and 3rd defendants appeared in court, they considered to give the undertaking in the aforesaid manner.
The case was filed by the plaintiff on the basis that the plaintiff was made aware of a tile adhesive product being sold by the defendants under the name and style of ‘Orient Superbond Tile Adhesive’. The plaintiff in the plaint set out that this product of the Defendant was in a package similar to the packaging used by the plaintiff for its tile adhesive product ‘Tokyo Superbond tile adhesive – standard set’ which is a registered trademark of the plaintiff and furthermore, incorporates a distinct shape similar to that of the plaintiff, in a manner to confuse and mislead the general public.
The plaintiff was represented in Court by Dr.Harsha Cabral, President’s Counsel with Nishan Premathiratne, Migara Cabral and Krishan Fernandopulle Attorneys at-Law appearing on the instructions of Julius and Creasy, Attorneys –at- Law.
The 2nd and 3rd defendants were represented in court by Faris and Associates, Attorneys –at- Law.