The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of trademark ownership, protection of goodwill, and prevention of deceptive use of trademarks, as outlined in the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The Appellants-original Defendants have challenged order dated 10 March 2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Pune. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

“(1) The application is allowed with costs.

(2) The non-applicants/defendants, their agents, servants and relatives are restrained from infringing the trade mark by selling the Chikki and other products at their shops by using the trade mark “Maganlal” and advertise the material.

(3) The non-applicants/defendants, their servants, and relatives are directed to remove all the material, as detailed supra, during the pendency of the present suit.

(4) The non-applicants/defendants are directed to destroy all the wrappers, cartons, advertisements and material.

(5) The present order shall come into effect after a period of three weeks from the date of passing of the said order.

(6) Application to grant of certified copy filed if any by the non-applicants be expedited.”

The case.

3. The relevant background as per the Appellants for the purpose of deciding the present Appeal From Order is necessary to consider the case of infringement of trademark in question. The Application for registration of mark “MS Maganlal” was filed by Chandraprakash, Dhruvkumar and Bharatkumar in the year 1978 trading in the name of firm. Mr. Mohanlal Agarwal, Prahlad Agarwal, Suresh Agarwal and Chandraprakash Agarwal were the partners of the firm. “MS Maganlal & Sons”, a proprietary firm, not partner of the “Maganlal & Sons in the year 1978. They were not doing business together as “Maganlal & Sons”. It is the case of the Appellants that the partners of “Maganlal & Sons” had never filed any application for registration of trademark in the year 1978. On 15.2.2003, the firm of “Maganlal & Sons” comprised of only two partners viz. BharatKumar and Dhruvkumar. Bharatkumar died on 26 January 2004 and hence the partnership firm of “Maganlal & Sons” stood dissolved and there was no question to reconstitute it on 26 April 2004. The filing of the Suit by the partners on 12.3.2009, is a false representation. No partnership deed dated 12 November 1968 was produced on record. Therefore, challenged order dated 10 March 2011 on the ground of vague pleading by referring Section 17(2) and Section 107 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Trade Marks Act). The challenge was also raised that the Respondent-Plaintiff was never the owners of the trademark for want of documents, and therefore, there was no question of granting any reliefs. The trial Judge has granted injunction against the Appellants.

4. It is stated that Omprakash Agarwal was permitted by the Respondents to sell the products in his shop under the trademark “Maganlal” which were supplied by Dhruv Agarwal who was permitted to sell in wholesale by the firm “Maganlal & Sons”. Upon demise of Omprakash Agarwal, the business was looked after by his wife (Appellant No.1) and by their two sons Amit and Vinit (Appellant Nos.2 & 3). The Respondents have been engaged in the business of manufacture and retail sale of various foods products in the brand name “Maganlal”. They are the registered owners of the trademark. They applied for registration through Chandraprakash Agarwal, Dhru Agarwal and Bharat Agarwal in the year 1978. They were at that time trading in the name of “firm” as “Maganlal & Sons”. There are four partners of the firm viz. Ashutosh Agarwal, Anant Agarwal, Anand Agarwal and Pankaj Agarwal. The Respondents allege that the Appellants started purchasing Chikki from outside and selling it under the brand name “Maganlal”. They stopped purchasing the chikki from the Respondents. It is alleged that the Appellants have been in gross violation not only advertised by displaying the boards, but further giving a advertisement in the local newspapers/magazines and using the wrappers, cartoons, and thereby doing the parallel business of