Case Note & Summary
The respondent/plaintiff, proprietor of 'Prem Mehandi Centre', filed two suits (Suit No. 1 of 2015 and Suit No. 2 of 2015) against the appellants/defendants for infringement of its registered trademark and copyright, and for passing off. The plaintiff claimed to be the registered proprietor of the trademark 'Prem Mehandi Centre' and had copyright in the artistic work of its label. The defendants were using similar marks 'Alok Mehandi Product' and 'Suhagan Kaveri Dulhan Mehandi Centre' for identical goods (mehandi products). The trial court (District Judge-3, Nashik) allowed the plaintiff's application (Ex.5) for interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using marks identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark and copyright during the pendency of the suit. Aggrieved, the defendants filed two appeals (Appeal from Order No. 393 of 2016 and 394 of 2016). The High Court heard both appeals together. The court considered the principles for grant of interim injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. It noted that the plaintiff's trademark was registered, and the defendants' marks were deceptively similar. The defendants did not raise any substantial defence. The court held that the trial court had exercised its discretion judicially and there was no reason to interfere. The appeals were dismissed, and the interim injunction was confirmed. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the suit and dispose it of within one year.
Headnote
A) Trademark Law - Infringement - Interim Injunction - Sections 28, 29, 134 Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The plaintiff, proprietor of 'Prem Mehandi Centre', sought injunction against defendant using similar marks for mehandi products. The trial court granted injunction finding prima facie case, balance of convenience in plaintiff's favour, and irreparable loss. The High Court upheld the order, noting that the plaintiff's mark was registered and the defendant's mark was deceptively similar, and that the defendant had no plausible defence. (Paras 1-26) B) Civil Procedure - Appeal from Order - Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC - The appeal challenged the trial court's order granting injunction. The High Court, in appellate jurisdiction, affirmed the findings of the trial court, holding that the discretion was exercised judicially and no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-26)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark and copyright during the pendency of the suit.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The interim injunction granted by the trial court is confirmed. The trial court is directed to expedite the suit and dispose it of within one year from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Trademark infringement
- Passing off
- Interim injunction
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Registered trademark
- Deceptive similarity
