Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V.MARNE
Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1. This is an action by the Plaintiff complaining of infringement and passing off in respect of its registered trademark used by it for manufacture and sale of its pharmaceutical and medicinal products. It is Plaintiff’s case that the Defendant’s mark
is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s mark and that the Defendant is using the impugned mark in respect of identical goods. In its Suit, Plaintiff filed application for temporary injunction. On 26 September 2025, the Plaintiff persuaded this Court to pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in its favour inter alia restraining the Defendant from using the mark or any other deceptively similar mark containing the word ELDER. This Court also appointed Court Receiver for sezuire of goods of the Defendant. Upon being served with ex-parte ad-interim injunction order, the Defendant has filed Interim Application (L) No.35091 of 2025 seeking vacation of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 26 September 2025 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) With the consent of parties, Defendant’s application for vacation of ad- interim injunction and Plaint
Ex-parte ad-interim injunction vacated for suppression of material facts in trademark infringement suit; plaintiff must disclose fully prior ownership, adverse orders, relationships with clean hands;....
Suppression of contradictory statements to trademark registry asserting marks dissimilar disentitles interim injunction in passing off and copyright suit; clean hands and prosecution history estoppel....
The court established that the rights of the prior user of a trademark are superior to those of a subsequent user, emphasizing the elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage in passing off c....
The use of the mark 'SUPER POSTMAN' by defendants was found to infringe the plaintiff's rights in the 'POSTMAN' mark due to deceptive similarity and ongoing goodwill of the plaintiff's trademark desp....
The judgment underscores that trademark registration alone does not guarantee protection without actual use, and that delay in action does not preclude injunction if infringement is proven.
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 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....
In trademark law, the likelihood of confusion rather than actual confusion is sufficient to grant injunctive relief, especially when the Plaintiff has established prior use and goodwill.
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
