Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Micro Hitech Industries, a sole proprietorship represented by its Karta and Proprietor Sri Goutam Kumar Babulal, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent, Uttam Gautam Appliances, represented by its sole proprietor Sri Uttam Kumar, alleging trademark infringement. The appellant had registered the trademark 'Nandi' in Class 21 for cookers and allied goods in 1993, valid till 19.10.2017, and also registered a label mark 'Nandi' in 2009 valid till 29.06.2019, and applied for registration of 'Nandi' for LPG gas stove in 2013 valid till 23.11.2021. In 2014, the appellant discovered that the respondent was manufacturing and selling pressure cookers and allied goods under the mark 'Nandini', and had applied for registration of that mark in Class 21 on 17.03.2014. The appellant filed OS No.2835/2015 before the XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, seeking a permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit on 31.01.2017. The appellant then filed the present appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The High Court considered the issue of whether the appellant is entitled to a temporary injunction. The appellant argued that the marks 'Nandi' and 'Nandini' are deceptively similar, and the respondent's use would cause confusion and damage the appellant's goodwill. The respondent contended that the marks are different and that the appellant had not made out a prima facie case. The High Court analyzed the phonetic and visual similarity between the marks and found that 'Nandini' is a derivative of 'Nandi' and likely to cause confusion. The court held that the appellant, being the prior registered proprietor, has a prima facie case, the balance of convenience is in favor of the appellant, and irreparable injury would be caused if the injunction is not granted. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark 'Nandini' pending disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Intellectual Property Rights - Trademark Infringement - Deceptive Similarity - Sections 28, 29, 134, 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The appellant, registered proprietor of the mark 'Nandi' for pressure cookers and allied goods, sought injunction against respondent using 'Nandini' for similar goods. The trial court dismissed the suit. The High Court held that the marks are deceptively similar, and the appellant has a prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favor, and would suffer irreparable injury if injunction is not granted. (Paras 2-10) B) Civil Procedure - Appeal against Rejection of Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - The High Court set aside the trial court's order dismissing the suit for permanent injunction, and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark 'Nandini' pending disposal of the suit. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark 'Nandini' which is deceptively similar to the appellant's registered trademark 'Nandi'.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree dated 31.01.2017 passed by the XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in OS No.2835/2015 is set aside. The respondent is restrained by way of an interim injunction from using the mark 'Nandini' pending disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Trademark infringement
- deceptive similarity
- prior registration
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable injury
- interim injunction
