JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Commercial Court’) in Commercial Dispute Case No. 02/2023 by which the learned Commercial Court has been pleased to refuse the prayer for interim/ad-interim injunction on the petition dated 08.12.2023 filed by the plaintiff-appellant.

Brief Facts of the Case

2. The appellant is a registered partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and trading of various types of products such as paints, lacquers, coatings, thinner, oxide colours, primer, preservatives against rust and deterioration, cement paints, plaster of paris, gypsum powder and its allied products (“hereinafter cumulatively referred to as “the products”).

3. According to the plaintiff, one Late Krishna Prasad is the founder of the business who had coined and adopted a trademark “JOHNSON”, initially for only few products such as red oxide, primer and cement paint known as ‘CEM’ in the year 1987. He had set up a proprietorship firm named as Johnson Paints (1) in the undivided State of Bihar. The firm got a Sales Tax No. as B.S.T. No. P.C.W. 690 (R) and C.S.T. No. P.C.W. 1874 (C).

4. It is stated that in the later stages, he had extended the business and established an upgraded manufacturing unit. He was using the widely accepted trademark “JOHNSON” named as ‘Johnson Paints Co.’ as a proprietorship firm and had been running the business smoothly. On 01.04.2014, he admitted both his sons in the existing business and converted it as ‘Johnson Paints Co.’ (a registered partnership firm). On 11.06.2016, the same firm has been reconstituted due to sudden demise of the founder of the firm. Now, the both sons-cum-existing partners are running the existing business of his father as successor of Late Krishna Prasad.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant comprises a group of companies/firm namely Johnson Paints (1), Johnson Paints Industries/Johnson Paints Co., glaze paints limited, etc. collectively known as “Johnson Paints” group which includes the companies represented through the group key person Mr. Nishant Krishna and Mr. Nitin Krishna. The appellant has three manufacturing units and more than 12 branches and depots all across the country. It has a wide distribution network, which serves more than 1000 dealers all across the country and has turnover of several crores of rupees. The case of the appellant is that he is using this trademark since 21^st April 1987 continuously and extensively in respect of the said goods. Because of the long and continuous use, extensive marketing and sales campaign, the paints and building materials sold under the trademark Johnson/Johnson Cem/Johnson Paints, has acquired enviable goodwill and reputation amongst the members.

6. The grievance of the plaintiff-appellant is that the respondent-defendant company i.e. Johnson Paints Pvt. Ltd., which has come into existence on 22.12.2009 has been using this trademark in the similar products thus, continuing passing off is taking place. The defendant-respondent is creating confusion in the mind of the consumers with a dishonest intention to deceive the customers in selling their products in the same name as the trademark of the plaintiff-appellant which is causing irreparable loss and damage to goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff-appellant has given the description of the various trademarks which are being used by the respondent in similar to that of the plaintiffs. The claim of the defendant-respondent with regard to the trade-marks being used by them are also shown in paragraph ‘14’ of the plaint, the same is being reproduced hereunder:-

Plaintiff's Trademarks Defendant's Trademarks

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff-appellant filed the plaint seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant and in f