Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Prakash Agro Industries Ltd., a company engaged in manufacturing and marketing food products including besan, pulses, wheat flour, and atta since 1983, is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'SAMRAT' in Class 30 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The appellant also holds copyright registration for the artistic work under the mark 'SAMRAT'. In September 2012, the appellant filed a suit alleging that the respondent, S.R.K. Products Pvt. Ltd., had started selling atta under the identical mark 'SAMRAT', which was phonetically, structurally, and visually identical to the appellant's registered mark. Despite a cease-and-desist notice, the respondent continued the infringing activity. The appellant sought an interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark. The learned District Judge, Pune, dismissed the injunction application on 15 December 2012. The appellant challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court considered the submissions of both parties. The appellant argued that the marks were identical and the goods were of the same description, leading to confusion. The respondent contended that the appellant's mark was not distinctive and that the respondent had been using the mark prior to the appellant's registration. The High Court, after examining the material, found that the marks were indeed identical and the goods were similar. The court held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for infringement and that the balance of convenience was in favor of granting injunction. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark 'SAMRAT' or any deceptively similar mark in relation to atta or other food products until the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Trade Marks - Infringement - Interim Injunction - Sections 9(2), 11(1), 28, 29 Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The appellant, registered proprietor of the mark 'SAMRAT' for goods in Class 30, sought injunction against respondent using identical mark for atta. The trial court dismissed the application. The High Court held that the marks are phonetically, structurally, and visually identical, and the goods are of the same description, causing likelihood of confusion. The court granted interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark 'SAMRAT' pending disposal of the suit. (Paras 1-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark 'SAMRAT' for atta, which is phonetically, structurally, and visually identical to the appellant's registered trademark 'SAMRAT' in Class 30.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Order dated 15 December 2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune, is set aside. The respondent is restrained by way of interim injunction from using the mark 'SAMRAT' or any deceptively similar mark in relation to atta or other food products until the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Trademark infringement
- Phonetic similarity
- Interim injunction
- Section 9(2) Trade Marks Act 1999
- Section 11(1) Trade Marks Act 1999
- Section 28 Trade Marks Act 1999
- Section 29 Trade Marks Act 1999
