A plaintiff's established ownership of a trademark and the demonstration of a prima facie case are critical in granting temporary injunctions against alleged infringements, regardless of the defendant's pending trademark application.

JUDGMENT :

JYOTI MULIMANI, J.

1. Sri.Dhananjay Joshi, Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.Nitin Prasad, for the appellant and Sri. Rishabha Raj Thakur, counsel for the respondent, has appeared in person.

2. Though the appeal is listed today for admission, with the consent of counsel for the respective parties, it is heard.

3. The short facts are these:

Vegan Hospitality Private Limited came up with a brand name called 'PAAKASHALA' to provide food and catering services in 2013. The brand name was assigned in favor of the appellant in 2018 by Vegan Hospitality Private Limited. The appellant is running its catering and restaurant business under the name and style "PAAKASHALA" which is apart from its various outlets.

In January 2025, the respondent was in the process of starting a restaurant by the name 'DOSA CORNER PAAKASHALA' in Mysuru, and though the restaurant was yet to commence operations, the signage had been put up. The appellant got issued notice on 21.01.2025 calling upon the respondent to cease and desist from using the said trade name. The respondent issued a reply on 29.01.2025. It is said that the respondent inaugurated the restaurant in the name of 'DOSA CORNER PAAKASHALE' which, according to the appellant, infringes their trade mark. Hence, the appellant got issued a Cease-and-Desist Notice dated 13.02.2025 to the respondent calling upon him to refrain from infringing the appellant's trade mark and to remove the signage and other infringing materials within two days. However, the notice returned unserved with an endorsement, no such person found at the said address; the appellant attempted to serve the notice by hand. However, the respondent refused to receive the same and make any endorsement thereon. The appellant got issued one more notice through registered post on 20.02.2025, but in vain.

The appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.1554/2025 seeking a permanent injunction from infringing the appellant's registered trade mark. The Trial Court vide order dated 04.03.2025 granted ad-interim injunction and issued suit summons to the respondent and notice on I.A.No.1 and emergent notice on I.A.No.2. The respondent entered an appearance and filed a written statement and a memo seeking to adopt the averments of the written statement as a response to I.A.Nos.1 and 2. The appellant also filed an application seeking correction of the order dated 04.03.2025 (I.A.No.3), and the Trial Court passed the orders allowing the application seeking correction of the interim order as prayed for. The respondent filed applications seeking leave of the Court to file an additional written statement (I.A.No.4) along with an additional written statement and seeking to stay the suit until the disposal of the rectification proceedings initiated by him before the Trade Marks Registry (I.A.No.5). The Trial Court extended the interim order dated 04.03.2025 until the disposal of I.A.No.1/2025. The appellant filed objections to I.A.Nos.4 and 5. The Trial Court vide order dated 03.05.2025 dismissed the appellant's temporary injunction application. Under these circumstances, the appellant is before this Court.

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

4. Sri.Dhananjay Joshi., Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is opposed to the law and facts of the case, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Next, he submits that the order is contrary to the settled principles of Trade Mark law that as per Section 28(1) of the Act, the registered proprietor of the Trade Mark shall have the exclusive righ