In passing-off cases, the burden of proof for establishing prior user lies with the plaintiff, and failure to provide substantial evidence undermines claims for injunction.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J :

Heard Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned Counsel for the appellant/2nd defendant and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Satya Sai Krishna Sistla, learned Counsel for the respondents.

I. Facts :

2. CMA No.522 of 2023 under Order 43 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been filed by the 2nd defendant in OS No.68 of 2023 filed by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, whereby IA No.537 of 2023 of the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, has been allowed, vide order dated 21.10.2022. The temporary injunction has been granted “restraining the respondents/defendants from starting or marketing or promoting or supporting or doing business either individually or jointly or with third parties, under the name and style which is similar to “Madras Filter Coffee” or “The Madras Filter Coffee” or such other name of trademark, with or without logo as shown in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint, which deceptively resembles the name being used by petitioners/plaintiffs for sale of their products or services being rendered, in their business being carried on under the name and style of “Madras Filter Coffee” in any manner including through the website www.madrasfiltercoffeeindia.com or through instagram profiles/pages or in any other form using any other online platforms, till the final disposal of the suit.”

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit. They filed that suit to grant a decree in their favour for the reliefs as under :

“VII. The plaintiffs therefore pray that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant a decree in favour of plaintiffs granting :

(i) Permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, partners, license holders or distributors or associates, or representatives, or servants or all other persons acting either on behalf of the defendants or at the instance of the defendants or otherwise, from in any manner passing-off their goods or services as that of the plaintiffs’ by either using the plaintiffs’ trademark “Madras Filter Coffee” or its trademark image/logo “(*)” as shown in Schedule-A of the Plaint or any other trademark, image or logo, which is structurally, visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to the trademark or trademark image/logo of the plaintiffs;

(ii) Permanent injunction, restraining defendants from starting or marketing or promoting or supporting or doing business either individually or jointly or with third parties, under the name and style which is similar to “Madras Filter Coffee” or “The Madras Filter Coffee” or such other name or trademark, with or without logo “(*)”, as shown in Schedule-A of the Plaint, which deceptively resembles the name being used by the plaintiffs for sale of their products or services being rendered, in their business being carried on under the name and style of “Madras Filter Coffee” in any manner including through the website www.madrasfiltercoffeeindia.com or through Instagram profiles/pages including URLs :

(a) https://instagram.com/madrasfiltercoffeeindia?igshld=YmMvMTA2M2Y =

(b) https://instagram.com/madrasfiltercoffeeofficial?igshld=YmMyMTA2M2Y = or in any other form using any other online platforms.

(iii) Mandatory i