Karnataka High Court
Judges : M.M.Mirdhe
BDA BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SHREE DURGA DISTILLERY - Respondent
Misc. First Appeal 722 Of 1992
Decided On : 07/28/1992
passing off - alcoholic beverages - C. P. C. - Order 43 Rule 1 (r) - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Rangamma v. Krishnappa, 1968 (1) Mysore Law Journal 552 - Gowrishankara Swamigalu v. Siddhaganga Mutt and Ors. , 1989 (2) Karnataka Law Journal 548 - Teju Singh v. Shanta Devi, AIR1974 AP 274 - Com Products v. Shangrila Food Products, AIR1960 SC 142 - Ruston and Hornsby Ltd. v. The Zamindara Engg. Co. , AIR1970 sc 1649
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent for using a name deceptively similar to the appellant's trade mark 'officers Choice' and for passing off respondent's goods as the goods of the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court found that the appellant failed to prove a prima facie case in his favor or the balance of convenience, and that there was no irreparable loss being caused to the appellant by not granting temporary injunction.
Issues: The issues involved the similarity between the trade marks, the balance of convenience, and the irreparable loss being caused to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for the appellant to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to obtain a temporary injunction. The Court also considered the principles of passing off and the factors to be observed while granting an ad-interim order of injunction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS Appeal is preferred by the appellant who was the plaintiff in the Court below under Order 43 Rule 1 (r), C. P. C. against the order dated 4-12-1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in O. S. No. 11 of 1991, dismissing. A. No. I filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. for grant of temporary injunction.
( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case.
( 3 ) THE appellant had filed a suit in the trial Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the name "officers Favourite" in relation to alcoholic beverages in any manner or any other name deceptively similar to the appellant's trade mark "officers Choice" and from passing off respondent's goods for the goods of the plaintiff. The appellant also filed in. A. for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from using the name "officers favourite" in relation to alcoholic beverages which is similar to the appellant's trade mark "officers Choice". The respondent has appeared in the case and he resisted the suit and the. A. The Court after hearing both sides has dismissed the. A. filed by the appellant. Hence, this appeal.
( 4 ) THE case of the appellant is that it is carrying on the business in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages including whisky and marketing its product under the trade mark "officers Choice" in a distinctive colour scheme and style. The respondent is passing off its product under the name "officers Favourite" copying more or less the same colour scheme and style of the appellant's label/mark which is causing great confusion in the minds of the public and is severely affecting the business and reputation of the plaintiff. The respondent has contended that the suit itself is not maintainable and the respondent-firm manufactures and sells the whisky under the name and style "officers Favourite" with four stars and that the respondent has developed a particular skill in the beverage and that initially during 1972 he began to manufacture Fenny under the trade names Coconut Fenny, Golden Star Fenny, Coastal Queen Fenny, Cashew Fenny and Palm fenny and in due course of time he developed a particular type of malt whisky and he also developed a particular trade mark "officers Favourite" for his product which is quite distinct and dissimilar from any other trade mark and that after using the name "officers Favourite" in stylish slanted handwritten type of letters, 4 stars beneath it in a line have been indicated and below the stars the word 'deluxe' in small letters and "malt Whisky" in large sized letters is printed and below that an emblem has been designed resembling a pendant with the word 'suvarna' inscribed in the centre thereof. He also contended that he was given an application in 1983 for granting manufacturing licence for IMFL and that the trade mark used by it is in existence much earlier to the mark which the appellant claims to have acquired and originated and there is no deception nor slavish imitation and that even for a naked eye and for a common man, the distinctions is very clear. Therefore, the case of the respondent is that the appellant has no prima facie case and the balance of convenience is not in its favour. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the. A. of the appellant. Hence, this Appeal.
( 5 ) IN Rangamma v. Krishnappa, 1968 (1) Mysore Law Journal 552 this Court has held as follows:" granting or refusal of temporary injunction rests on the sound exercise of discretion by the court. Such exercise of discretion cannot be lightly interfered with by the appellate Court, unless it is shown that such exercise of discretion is unreasonable or capricious. That a different view was possible on the facts and circumstances of the case by itself will not be sufficient to interfere with the order. (1965) 1 Mys. L. J. 370 ref. to. " in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.