Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Suit Based on Prior Use and Consent Award. The court restrained the defendants from using a deceptively similar trademark, holding that the plaintiffs' registered mark and prior use established a prima facie case.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 18
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiffs, Surat Goods Transport Pvt. Ltd. and others, filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against Total Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. and others. The first plaintiff is the registered proprietor of a trademark comprising a globe superimposed on a stylized letter 'S' with the slogan 'Making Things Happen', registered with effect from 11 October 2005. The plaintiffs claimed continuous use since 2000-01. The parties were initially in business together, but disputes arose in 2008, resolved by a consent arbitral award dated 26 May 2008. Under the award, the first plaintiff was allotted the group comprising plaintiffs 2 to 4, and the first defendant was allotted the group comprising defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiffs alleged that despite the settlement, the defendants continued to use a deceptively similar trademark, leading to the suit. The court considered the motion for interim relief. It found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, the balance of convenience was in their favor, and irreparable loss would be caused if the injunction was not granted. Accordingly, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark pending the suit.

Headnote

A) Trademark Law - Infringement and Passing Off - Interim Injunction - Registered trademark with prior use since 2000-01 - Defendants using deceptively similar mark after family settlement under consent award - Court held that plaintiffs made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favor, and irreparable loss would be caused if injunction not granted - Defendants restrained from using the impugned mark (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using a deceptively similar trademark pending the suit.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the motion and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned trademark pending the suit.

Law Points

  • Trademark infringement
  • passing off
  • interim injunction
  • prior use
  • registered trademark
  • consent award
  • family settlement
  • balance of convenience
  • irreparable loss
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (04) 42

Notice of Motion No.438 of 2010 in Suit No.370 of 2010

2011-04-26

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.T. Engineer and Ms. Madhuri Sakpal i/b. Thodur Law Associates for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Manish Saurastri with Mr. Rahul Dhole i/b. Krishna & Saurastri Associates for the Defendants.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Suit for infringement and passing off of trademark.

Remedy Sought

Interim injunction restraining the defendants from using a deceptively similar trademark.

Filing Reason

Alleged use of deceptively similar trademark by defendants despite a consent award settling family disputes.

Previous Decisions

Consent arbitral award dated 26 May 2008 resolving disputes between the parties.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs have a prima facie case for interim injunction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. Whether the balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiffs.

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiffs argued continuous use of the mark since 2000-01 and registration with effect from 2005, and that defendants' use after the consent award amounted to infringement and passing off. Defendants likely contested the claim, but specific arguments not extracted from text.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off based on prior use and registration; balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs as they would suffer irreparable loss if injunction not granted.

Judgment Excerpts

The motion for interim relief arises in a suit for infringement and passing off. The First Plaintiff is a proprietor of a registered trade mark. The disputes stood resolved upon the passing of a consent award dated 26 May 2008 in arbitral proceedings between the parties.

Procedural History

The suit was filed in 2010. The plaintiffs filed Notice of Motion No.438 of 2010 seeking interim relief. The court heard the motion and delivered judgment on 26 April 2011.

Acts & Sections

  • Trade Marks Act, 1999:
  • Companies Act, 1956:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petition Under Article 227 Against Executing Court Order Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree in Execution Proceedings. Executing Court Exceeded Jurisdiction by Reopening Decree Validity After It Had Become Final.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Debutter Board Members for Alleged Non-Compliance of Directions in Kamakhya Temple Case. Court Holds That Original Judgment Did Not Direct Payment of Money, and Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used to...