Case Brief:

Plaintiff: M/S Prettycosmo & Beauty Private Limited

Directors and Owners: Mr. Rahul Saluja, Mr. Linesh Madaan, Ms. Nidhi Jain

1.The Plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated under Indian law.

The company is operated by Mr. Rahul Saluja, Mr. Linesh Madaan, and Ms.
Nidhi Jain. The business is conducted under the name "Pretty Cosmo" at H-
11, Rajouri Garden Marg, Main Market, Block H, Rajouri Garden, Delhi -
110027. Mr. Linesh Madaan is the authorized signatory.

2.The Plaintiff is involved in the retail, wholesale, and export of cosmetics

and accessories. They operate both offline stores and an interactive website
called "www.prettycosmo.in." The Plaintiff has a strong presence on social
media platforms like Instagram and Facebook, with over one lakh followers,
including prominent celebrities and influencers.

3 The inauguration of Pretty Cosmo was honored by Ms. Leena Bhushan, a

leading stylist and makeup artist. The Plaintiff's retail shop sells top brands
of cosmetics, as evidenced by endorsements from film stars like Katrina Kaif
on her Instagram handle.

History:

4.The present lawsuit aims to protect the Plaintiff's rights in their well-
known trademark "Pretty Cosmo" and their trade name "Prettycosmo &
Beauty Private Limited," which are used for marketing and selling
cosmetics. The Defendant has been using the identical trademark without
authorization in relation to retailing cosmetics.

5 The Plaintiff adopted the wordmark "Pretty Cosmo" as its trademark and
trade name in 2019. The Plaintiff's owners formed a private limited
company, "Prettycosmo & Beauty Private Limited," incorporating their trade
name. The Defendant was the fourth investor and director in this company.

6.During the Defendant's tenure with the Plaintiff, it was discovered that he
was stealing money from customers by clandestinely taking cash from the
cash box counter. The Plaintiff has evidence to support this fact. After two
years, the other directors and shareholders became aware of the Defendant's
fraudulent activities from the books of accounts and the Plaintiff's
accountant. It was found that the Defendant had siphoned off INR
30,00,000/- during his term as a director. When confronted, the Defendant
admitted to his misconduct and fraud, apologizing to the existing
shareholders for stealing money from the Plaintiff's cash counter. The
Defendant's actions resulted in significant financial loss and distress for the
Plaintiff and its remaining share
7.The present Directors and shareholders entered into a Settlement
Agreement dated 07/12/2021 with the Defendant to safeguard the interests of
all parties involved, including financial interests. The Defendant agreed to
comply with non-compete/non-conflict provisions and not operate in conflict
with the interests of the Directors and the Plaintiff.

8.As part of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant agreed not to use the
trademarks and copyrights of the Plaintiff or assert any rights or affiliations
with them. Breach of this clause allows the Releasors to terminate
obligations and forfeit any unpaid remainder of the settlement sum.

9.The Defendant has recently been found breaching the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, including unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's
trademark "Pretty Cosmo" and other breaches.

10.The Defendant is using the Plaintiff's trademark "Pretty Cosmo" without

authorization and is planning to or has already launched operations under the
name "Cosmos Beauty," which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's name.
11.The Defendant has applied for registration of the name "Cosmos Beauty"
as a trademark and is threatening to offer services under the impugned mark
for identical/related goods.

12 The Defendant has also misappropriated and exploited the Plaintiff's

proprietary information, causing breach of trust, distress, misrepresentation,
cheating, and breach of contract.

13.The mark "Pretty Cosmo" was created by the Plaintiff, who was the first
adopter and had applied for its protection in 2019.

14.The Plaintiff's services under the mark "Pretty Cosmo" have substantial
sales in India, with a consistent increase in demand. The annual sales figures
and expenditures reflect the success and efforts of the Plaintiff.
16.The Plaintiff has exclusive rights to the mark "COSMO" or the trade
name "PRETTYCOSMO AND BEAUTY," and it is illegal for anyone to use
a trademark or trade name that is identical or deceptively similar.

17.The Defendant, with knowledge of the Plaintiff's business and

confidential information, started a business using a similar mark to benefit
from the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. This is intended to mislead the
public and falsely imply an association with the Plaintiff.

18.The Defendant's actions cause confusion and deception, leading to unjust

benefits and pecuniary gains for the Defendant. This conduct is contrary to
honest business practices and violates the settlement terms between the
parties.

19.The Defendant is in violation of Clause 5 of the Settlement Agreement

and is liable for all available legal remedies, including restraining further use
of the brand name or intellectual property.
20.The Doctrine of Estoppel applies, as the Defendant is prohibited from
using the word "COSMO" or any similar mark according to the Settlement
Agreement. The agreed terms cannot be ignored, especially when the
Defendant attempts to use a deceptively similar trademark.

21.The Defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark, along with the

Plaintiff's confidential information and trade secrets, constitutes passing off
and infringement of the Plaintiff's Intellectual Property Rights.

22.The Defendant, who was previously associated with the Plaintiff's brand,
misled clients by stating that the Plaintiff's business had relocated to another
location.

23.Manipulation of the Plaintiff's intellectual assets and information is

punishable under Indian laws, including the Indian Penal Code, Indian
Contract Act, and Indian Trademarks Act.

24.The Defendant is using a made-up name, "Neil Kataria," instead of his

legal name on social media platforms, further demonstrating a mala fide
intention to encroach upon the Plaintiff's Intellectual Property Rights.

25.The Defendant's conduct not only causes financial harm to the Plaintiff
but also damages its goodwill and reputation, which cannot be quantified in
monetary terms.

26.The Defendant's use of the Plaintiff's Intellectual Property confuses

consumers and results in unfair enrichment for the Defendant. The
Defendant is liable for damages and is also subject to criminal liability for
these actions
27.The Defendant's use of a mark identical or deceptively similar to the
Plaintiff's mark is unjustifiable and dishonest. The Defendant's actions
constitute passing off, as they are attempting to misrepresent their services as
those of the Plaintiff. Reasons for passing off include the Plaintiff's
widespread use and promotion of their mark, the Defendant's prior
association with the Plaintiff, and the obvious reference to the Plaintiff's
mark in the Defendant's services.

28.The law of passing off aims to protect traders from unfair competition by
preventing the appropriation of a rival trader's reputation through false and
misleading means. The present case exemplifies unfair competition, as the
Defendant seeks to benefit from the Plaintiff's reputation by passing off their
services as the Plaintiff's.

29.The Defendant's adoption of an identical mark is dishonest and aimed at

capitalizing on the Plaintiff's extensive reputation and goodwill. This
unlawful adoption threatens the Plaintiff's reputation and business and
dilutes the distinctiveness of the Plaintiff's brand. The loss and injury caused
by this dilution cannot be quantified in monetary terms, necessitating
immediate injunctive relief.

30.The Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable loss and
damage to their goodwill and reputation due to the Defendant's unfair trade
practices and passing off. Unless the Defendant is permanently restrained by
an injunction, both the consumers and the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable
harm that cannot be adequately compensated monetarily.
31.Estimated damages from Defendant's infringing acts: INR 50 lakhs.
32.Cause of action: Legal notice sent on 21.04.2022 for selling counterfeit
services under COSMOS BEAUTY. Cause of action is continuous until
Defendant is restrained from selling counterfeit PRETTY COSMO services.
33.Territorial jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court: Defendant engages in
clandestine sales, offering, supplying, and soliciting under the impugned
trademark/label through website www.cosmosbeauty.in in Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi. Possibility to conclude transactions through the website is
equivalent to a physical shop in the same city. Defendant's activities occur in
Lajpat Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Plaintiff
has credible and imminent threat of Defendant launching and expanding
operations in Delhi under the impugned trademark/label. Defendant's
activities likely to affect Plaintiff's business in Delhi. Jurisdiction under
Trade Marks Act, 1999 (sections 134 and 135) and Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (section 20). Services purchased by the general public residing within
the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court