The court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court to grant injunctions under the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing the registration and prior use of trademarks while clarifying the territorial limits of such injunctions.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

This Commercial appeal is directed against the order dated 06.07.2024 passed on I.As.No.2, 5 and 7 in Com O.S.No.111/2024 by X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Dedicated Commercial Court) Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "Commercial Court" for short).

2. The operative portion of order under appeal reads as follows:-

"I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiff under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C is hereby allowed and an order of ad-interim temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendants, its Directors, officers, employees, agents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors-in- interest, assigns and any other person claiming through or under them, from in any manner using the trade mark 'Remedi' and any other trademark which incorporates the plaintiff's trademark 'Remedi' or which is deceptively similar or identical to the plaintiff's trademark 'Remedi' in respect of medical and diagnostic products or services related thereto, during the pendency of the suit.

The applications (IA-5 and 7) filed by the defendants under section 124 of TRADE MARKS ACT 1999 are hereby rejected.

No order as to costs."

3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the order of the Commercial Court is manifestly illegal since the appellant has a global presence and had been using the trademark 'Remedi' since 2012. It is submitted that the sophisticated medical equipment and services provided by the appellant under the trade name 'Remedi' has absolutely no connection with the test kits and services offered by the respondent/ plaintiff. It is submitted that there is no possibility of any confusion or misrepresentation since the potential purchasers of the parties are totally different and distinct and there can be no injunction granted on mere speculation. Further, it is contended that the plaintiff had suffered an order of abandonment of the application for registration of the trademark 'Remedi' under Class 10 Diagnostic apparatus for medical use and the grant of registration without recall of the abandonment order by recourse to process known to law would render the registration invalid. It is therefore contended that the application under Section 124 (1) ought to have been allowed by the Commercial Court. It is further contended that the plaintiff who approached the Court without disclosing the true facts is not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction that has been granted by the Court. It is further contended that the specific ground raised that the suit was belated was not properly considered by the Court. Finally, it is contended that even if the order is found to be valid, it cannot operate outside the territory of India, since the appellant is a company registered in Korea having global presence.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has relied on the following judgments:-

- Google LIC v. Makemytrip (India) Private Limited & Ors, by Judgment dated 14.12.2023 passed in FAO(OS) (COMM) Nos.147/2022 & 148/2022;

- Khoday Distilleries Limited (Now Known as Khoday India Limited) v. Scotch Whisky Association and Others, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 723; and

- Paramount Surgimed Limited v. Paramount Bed India Private Limited & Ors., reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8728.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the suit was one for infringement and the admitted fact was that the plaintiff had registered the trademark 'Remedi' in respect of medical d