Back
A. S. CHANDURKAR, RAJESH S. PATIL
Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar – Appellant
Versus
Arun Shamrao Mardhekar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh S. Patil, J.
The present Commercial Appeal from Order is filed by the appellant (original defendant) challenging the judgment and order dated 17th February 2023, passed below Ex.5, by the District Court, Satara in Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 2023.
2. The appellant herein is the original defendant before the Trial Court, and the respondent herein is the original plaintiff before the Trial Court. The parties are hereinafter referred as per their nomenclature in the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff on 5th December 2022 filed a suit before the District Court, Satara against the defendant claiming recovery of an amount of Rs.10,92,799/- and also sought an order restraining permanently the defendant from manufacturing, selling and storing the product in the name of ^^'kqHky{eh fpoMk fjVdoyh**. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also preferred an interim application in the form of ‘Ex.5’ thereby seeking interim orders during pendency of the suit, against the defendant and their representatives to restrain them from manufacturing, selling and storing the product in the name of ^^'kqHky{eh fpoMk fjVdoyh**.
4. The plaintiff’s suit is based on the ground that the plaintiff has a tra
A plaintiff must use their registered trademark to claim infringement; failure to do so undermines the basis for an injunction.
Important Point :The use of a trademark that is phonetically and visually similar to a registered trademark can lead to confusion, constituting infringement, especially when dishonest conduct is evid....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademarks, the likelihood of confusion or deception arising from the similarity of marks, and the prima facie case of infringeme....
if there is no infirmity found in the order of the Trial Court, injunction against encashment of bank guarantee and letter of credit should not be granted except where fraud or irretrievable damage i....
The court found that despite phonetic similarity, the distinctiveness of trade marks and differences in intended consumer bases negate the likelihood of confusion and passing off.
Trademark infringement and passing off claims are assessed based on overall consumer confusion and not merely by direct comparison of marks.
The court upheld the plaintiff's rights as the prior user and registered owner of the trademark, granting an injunction against the defendant's use of a similar mark due to the likelihood of consumer....
Point of Law : Section 27 of Trade Marks Act provides that no action for infringement will lie in respect of an unregistered trade mark.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
