SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(AP) 97

SANJEEVA ROW NAIDU
Abdulla Khan – Appellant
Versus
B. Miskin Saheb – Respondent


SANJEEVA ROW NAYUDU, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the District Judge, Kurnool in I. A. No. 299 of 1957 in O. S. No. 4 of 1957 on the file of the District Court. Kurnool, refusing to grant an injunction restraining the defendants from continuing to make use of the label on their beedies which they have been all along using. The learned District judge held that the grant of a temporary injunction would result in giving the plaintiff undue advantage over the defendants and that if ultimately the plaintiff had to succeed in the suit, he would be compensated by damages. This is a most extraordinary conclusion to come to on an application for an injunction to restrain the defendants from taking use of a trade mark which was likely to deceive the public into thinking that that trade mark was that of the plaintiff. If the reasoning of the learned District Judge were to he accepted, then there could be no injunction at all in any case of violation of a trade mark. The simple point that requires to be considered in this case in deciding whether or not a temporary injunction should issue pending the disposal of the suit is. whether the ring label with whic




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top