- Plaintiff submits infringing on trademark constitute acts of unfair competition under IP Act
- Judge issues notice of interim injunctions and summons returnable on 21 July
The Commercial High Court this week granted interim relief to Plaintiff Zahra Exports Limited of No. 334, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10 in a trademark case the Company had filed against Millennium Teas Ltd., of 161/B, Ambatale Road, Mulleriyawa North, over the use of a similar-sounding name.
Judge of the Commercial High Court D.F.H. Gunawardhena issued the enjoining orders in terms of Section 170 read with Sections 121, 144 and 160 of the Intellectual Property Act No: 36 of 2003, restraining Millennium Teas Ltd. from engaging in actions infringing the Trade Mark belonging to Zahra Exports Ltd.
The Judge also issued notice of interim injunctions and summons returnable on 21-07-2020.
Zahra Exports Ltd., the owner of the trade mark ‘Zahra Tea’ written both in the English and Arabic languages and registered under Registration No. 58748 in terms of the Intellectual Property Act No: 36 of 2003, filed action bearing in the Commercial HC upon becoming aware that a company named Millennium Teas Ltd., is packing teas into bags and/or cartons and/or boxes affixing marks, in infringement of the Trade Mark of Zahra Exports Ltd., onto packing materials cartons and boxes and exporting the same to the North African country Mali.
Zahra Exports is a joint venture company between Akbar Brothers and Stassen Exports.
President’s Counsel Nihal Fernando with Harshula Senawairatne and Manendra Madena, appearing for Zahra Exports Ltd., supporting the application for interim relief, submitted that the use and/or the application and/or attaching and/or affixing and/or printing the mark ‘Zahra’ by Millennium Teas Ltd., in respect of which the aforesaid mark is registered by Zahra Exports Ltd., is wrongful and/or unlawful and/or illegal and/or is in violation of the Plaintiff's rights and/or contrary to the imperative and/or express provisions in Part V of the Intellectual Property Act No.36 of 2003.
The Plaintiff said this action constitutes acts of unfair competition within the meaning of Section 160 of the Intellectual Property Act No.36 of 2003 as they are acts and practices carried out or engaged in the course of commercial activities that are contrary to honest practices.