Case Note & Summary
The present Original Side Appeals (OSAs) were filed against the common order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in OA.Nos.1 & 2 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div).No.2 of 2025. The applicants (respondents herein) are engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing cables and wires under the Trade Mark ORBIT/ADL ORBIT and are the registered proprietors of the said marks. They filed the suit seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents (appellants herein) from infringing their trade marks. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, found that there was a prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the applicants, and that irreparable loss would be caused if no interim injunction was granted. Consequently, an interim injunction was granted restraining the use of the subject trade marks. Aggrieved, the respondents filed the present OSAs. The main contention of the appellants was that the applicants had acquiesced to the continuous usage of the mark by the respondents, and that the learned Single Judge failed to consider this aspect. It was also contended that the respondents were using 'ORBIT' only as a trading name and not as a product name, and thus there was no deceptive similarity. Additionally, the appellants argued that the applicants had earlier litigated before the Delhi High Court without seeking relief to restrain the use of the trade name, and therefore the present suit amounted to forum shopping. The Division Bench, after hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents, dismissed the appeals. The court held that the learned Single Judge had correctly applied the principles for grant of interim injunction, and that the allegations of acquiescence and forum shopping were not substantiated. The court found that the applicants had a strong prima facie case, the balance of convenience was in their favour, and irreparable loss would ensue if the injunction was not granted. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, and the interim injunction granted by the Single Judge was upheld.
Headnote
A) Trade Marks - Infringement - Interim Injunction - Sections 28, 29, 134 Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The court considered whether the registered proprietor of the mark 'ORBIT' was entitled to interim injunction against alleged infringers - Held that the registered proprietor has a prima facie case, balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant, and irreparable loss would be caused if injunction is not granted - The Single Judge's order was upheld (Paras 1-3). B) Trade Marks - Acquiescence - Delay and Acquiescence - Section 30 Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The appellants contended that the respondents acquiesced to the use of the mark - Held that mere delay or knowledge does not amount to acquiescence unless there is active encouragement or abandonment of rights - The Single Judge's finding that there was no acquiescence was affirmed (Para 5). C) Civil Procedure - Forum Shopping - Res Judicata - Section 10 CPC - The appellants argued that the suit was barred by forum shopping as the respondents had earlier litigated before the Delhi High Court - Held that the earlier proceedings were not on the same cause of action and did not preclude the present suit - The Single Judge's rejection of the forum shopping plea was upheld (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in granting interim injunction restraining the appellants from using the trade marks 'ORBIT' and 'ORBIT/ADL ORBIT' pending disposal of the suit, and whether the respondents' conduct amounts to acquiescence or forum shopping.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the appeals and upheld the interim injunction granted by the learned Single Judge.
Law Points
- Trademark infringement
- interim injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- acquiescence
- forum shopping
- deceptive similarity
