Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., filed a contempt petition against the respondents, H.P. Oil Corporation Ltd. and its directors, alleging willful disobedience of an injunction order passed by the Bombay High Court on 19th December 2003 in Notice of Motion No.3714 of 2003 in Suit No.3940 of 2003. The injunction restrained the respondents from using the mark 'HP' or any deceptively similar mark in relation to petroleum products. The petitioner claimed that the respondents continued to use the mark after the order, thereby committing contempt. The respondents contended that they had filed an appeal against the injunction order and had not willfully disobeyed it. The court examined the evidence and found that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondents had violated the order after it was passed. The court held that mere filing of an appeal does not constitute contempt, and the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to show willful disobedience. The contempt petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The petitioner alleged that the respondents violated an injunction order restraining them from using the mark 'HP' or deceptively similar marks. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove willful disobedience, as the respondents had filed an appeal against the order and there was no clear evidence of violation after the order was passed. (Paras 1-10)
B) Trade Mark - Injunction - Trade Marks Act, 1999, Sections 134, 135 - The petitioner sought interim injunction to restrain the respondents from infringing its registered trade marks. The court noted that the respondents had filed an appeal against the injunction order, which was pending, and that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of contempt. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by violating the injunction order dated 19th December 2003 passed in Notice of Motion No.3714 of 2003 in Suit No.3940 of 2003.
Final Decision
The contempt petition is dismissed. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove willful disobedience of the injunction order by the respondents.
Law Points
- Contempt of court requires willful disobedience
- mere filing of appeal does not constitute contempt
- burden of proof on petitioner to show willful disobedience
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 119
Contempt Petition No.114 of 2004 in Notice of Motion No.3714 of 2003 in Suit No.3940 of 2003
Mr. Salil Shah with Mr. Gajria i/b/ Gajria & Co. for the Petitioner; Mr. Pranav Sampat i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Respondents
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
H.P. Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of an injunction order in a trademark infringement suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to punish the respondents for contempt of court for violating the injunction order dated 19th December 2003.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that the respondents continued to use the mark 'HP' or deceptively similar marks after the injunction order was passed.
Previous Decisions
An injunction order was passed on 19th December 2003 in Notice of Motion No.3714 of 2003 in Suit No.3940 of 2003, restraining the respondents from using the mark 'HP' or any deceptively similar mark.
Issues
Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by willfully disobeying the injunction order dated 19th December 2003.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the respondents continued to use the mark 'HP' after the injunction order, thereby committing contempt.
The respondents contended that they had filed an appeal against the injunction order and had not willfully disobeyed it.
Ratio Decidendi
Mere filing of an appeal against an injunction order does not constitute contempt. The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to show willful disobedience, and in this case, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners herein is a Public Corporation namely Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.
According to the petitioners, the respondent no.1 committed certain acts which resulted in violation of the trade mark held by the petitioners in regard to their products.
The petitioners had taken out Notice of Motion No.3714 of 2003 in the aforesaid Suit No.3940 of 2003 and had asked for following reliefs:
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Suit No.3940 of 2003 for trademark infringement and obtained an interim injunction on 19th December 2003. The respondents filed an appeal against the injunction order. The petitioner then filed Contempt Petition No.114 of 2004 alleging willful disobedience of the injunction order. The contempt petition was heard and dismissed on 9th and 10th March 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 2(b)
- Trade Marks Act, 1999: Sections 134, 135
