Delhi High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost On Dior, Dismisses 'Poison Pot' Trademark Suit

A Delhi district court has dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by luxury French perfume house Parfums Christian Dior against Indian cosmetics maker Maja Health Care Division and two others over the 'Poison Pot' mark.

The court held that Dior failed to establish its legal identity and proper authorisation to sue. It also failed to prove infringement and passing off on their merits.

District Judge Anubhav Jain of Patiala House Courts delivered the judgment on May 12, nearly 14 years after the suit was filed in 2012. The court additionally imposed Rs 2 lakh in costs on Dior, criticizing the manner in which the litigation was pursued.

Dior had sued Maja Health Care Division, Kanshi Ram Pawan Kumar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., and Manish Sethi. It alleged that the 'Poison Pot' mark was phonetically and visually deceptively similar to its registered 'POISON' mark, which it claimed to have adopted in 1985.

The suit sought a permanent injunction, delivery of infringing goods, and rendition of accounts of profits.

On the question of legal identity, the court noted that Dior's authorised representative, Meena Bansal, was the sole plaintiff witness.

During cross-examination, Dior's authorised representative, Meena Bansal, admitted that she did not know the precise legal nature of the plaintiff entity, including whether it was a company, society, or another form of legal entity, and that no incorporation or formation documents had been placed on record.

The court found that the suit had been filed on the strength of a power of attorney executed by Oliver Gourdon, described as Dior's 'Market Protection Director.'

However, Bansal admitted she had no knowledge of whether Gourdon had been authorised by Dior's board to appoint an authorised representative for litigation in India.

Bansal also said she was a freelance trademark agent who had received ₹25,000 to act as the authorised representative.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in State Bank of Travancore v. Kingston Computer, the court held that a letter of authority from an officer without a board resolution delegating such power “was nothing but a scrap of paper.”

On the infringement and passing off claims, the court applied the test of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. It found no likelihood of confusion.

Visually, the court found the rival products to be completely dissimilar in packaging, colour combination, and background.

The court also noted the stark difference in price points. Dior Poison sold for Rs 10,000 to Rs 20,000, while St. John Poison Pot was priced between ₹700 and ₹800.

“It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be believed that product 'DIOR' is being purchased by illiterate/average customer with limited recollection or that there is even likelihood of confusion in mind of customer,while differentiating between the two.” the court observed.

The court further noted that St. John Poison Pot prominently displayed the house mark 'St. John.' Dior's product clearly bore the 'Dior' name. This, the court said, further reduced any possibility of confusion.

“To carry out litigation in such manner not only clogs the Judicial System but also results in wastage of Judicial time and harassment of defendant,” the court held.

The court imposed ₹2 lakh in costs on Dior, payable to Maja Health Care Division, which contested the proceedings for 14 years.