Key Points from the Judgment

• The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the trademark "MADHU BAHAR" in respect of chewing tobacco, along with claims for passing off, accounts, and damages. [11000352280001]

• An ex parte interim injunction was granted on 06.02.2012, restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in chewing tobacco under "MADHU BAHAR" or any deceptively similar mark, with one week's time given to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. [11000352280001][11000352280004]

• Defendant raised objections including: non-compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC; plaintiff never used the green color label filed in court; sale figures in pleadings do not match those in the Trade Mark Office affidavit; "MADHU" and "MADHU BAHAR" are distinct, with plaintiff registered only as a label mark, not word per se under Section 17 of Trade Marks Act, 1999; and defendant holds a license for the mark through United Traders, making the suit not maintainable. [11000352280014] (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Plaintiff's counsel admitted the complete paper book (over 2.5 kg) was not supplied under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC compliance (only ~1 kg parcel sent); no justification for sale figure discrepancies; undertook to produce evidence of green label use if any; claimed affidavit of compliance filed in Registry with postal receipt, but Registry reported no filing. [11000352280002][11000352280003]

• Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC mandates that after granting ex parte injunction, the applicant must immediately deliver or send by registered post to the opposite party: copy of injunction application, supporting affidavit, plaint, and relied documents; and file an affidavit of such compliance on the grant day or next day. [11000352280005][11000352280006]

• Non-compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC's mandatory provisions renders the ex parte injunction liable to be vacated, as the rule requires strict adherence to protect the opposite party. [11000352280007]

• The provision ensures caution in exercising extraordinary ex parte injunction power without hearing the affected party, and partial or delayed compliance (e.g., incomplete paper book, no proof of full delivery/sending) defeats its purpose. (!) (!) (!) [11000352280011] (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Plaintiff failed to send complete paper book/documents, constituting total non-compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. [11000352280004][11000352280012]

• Ex parte interim order dated 06.02.2012 suspended; plaintiff's interim application (IA No.2222/2012) dismissed for non-appearance; defendant's application (IA No.2846/2012) disposed of; suit renotified on 24.05.2012. [11000352280012][11000352280013] (!) (!)