Case Note & Summary
The case involves a commercial appeal by the original defendants against an ex-parte ad-interim order dated 15th September 2022 passed by a single judge in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The plaintiff, Suarabhakti Goods Pvt Ltd, alleged that the defendants, Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya and Nirav Patel, were using a deceptively similar mark. The impugned order granted a time-limited injunction until 19th October 2022, appointed a Court Receiver for a limited purpose, and gave liberty to the defendants to apply for variation with 72 hours notice. The defendants appealed, arguing that the order was passed without notice and that the plaintiff suppressed material facts, including that the defendants were registered proprietors of the rival mark (though subsequent to plaintiff's registration) and that the plaintiff had applied for cancellation of the defendants' mark but did not annex the application. The division bench, comprising GS Patel and Gauri Godse JJ, heard the appeal. The court noted that the plaint did mention the defendants' registration and the cancellation application, and that the order was time-limited with liberty to the defendants. The court found no material suppression and held that the ex-parte order was justified. The appeal was dismissed, and the interim order was confirmed. The court also directed that the leave petition under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent be decided expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex-parte Ad-Interim Injunction - Order 39 Rule 3 CPC - Suppression of Material Facts - The court examined whether the plaintiff suppressed the fact that defendants were registered proprietors of the rival mark and that cancellation proceedings were pending. Held that there was no material suppression as the plaint mentioned the registration and cancellation application, and the defendants had opportunity to apply for variation. (Paras 4-10) B) Trademark Law - Infringement and Passing Off - Registered Trademark - The court noted that the defendants' subsequent registration does not bar an infringement action and that the plaintiff's prior registration gives a prima facie case. The ex-parte order was time-limited and with liberty to defendants. (Paras 3, 10) C) Civil Procedure - Court Receiver - Appointment - The appointment of Court Receiver for a limited purpose was held to be within the court's discretion and not a ground to set aside the order. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned ex-parte ad-interim order granting injunction and appointing Court Receiver should be set aside on grounds of suppression of material facts by the plaintiff.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 15th September 2022 is confirmed. The leave petition under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent is directed to be decided expeditiously.
Law Points
- Ex-parte ad-interim injunction
- Order 39 Rule 3 CPC
- Suppression of material facts
- Trademark infringement
- Passing off
- Registered trademark
- Leave petition under Clause 14 Letters Patent
- Court Receiver appointment
