The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trade marks and the prevention of deceptive similarity in trade marks to avoid confusion among consumers.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant (the plaintiff in the suit) challenging the order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Central)-10, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (in short, 'the ADJ') in Suit bearing TM No. 97 of 2019 (157 of 2019) titled Ms. Dhani Aggarwal v. Mahesh Yadav & Ors., whereby the learned ADJ has been pleased to dispose of the application of the appellant filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'CPC') as also the application of the respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC, holding that prima facie the word per se, that is, 'RAMU' (of the appellant) and 'RAMAA', 'RAMAA MUNAKKA' label (of the respondents) may not have phonetic similarity but the overall get up/label/packaging of the appellant has been copied by the respondents and the respondents have tried to come close to the appellant; the appellant being the prior user of the mark/label and an established brand, was entitled to the protection of its label. The learned ADJ has held that the defendants in the suit/respondents herein would be entitled to use the trade mark 'RTC RAMAA', but with a label and colour combination which they have adopted for their inner packaging. The respondents have been restrained from use of the outer trade dress/label/colour combination as is being used by the appellant on its products.

2. The appellant is aggrieved of the vacation of the temporary injunction on the respondents from using its mark 'RAMMA' and 'RAMMA MUNAKKA'.

3. On the other hand, the respondents have filed cross-objections, C.M. NO. 3-2022, praying that even the limited temporary injunction has been wrongly granted and should be vacated by this Court.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

4. The learned counsel for the appellant urges that the two marks, that is 'RAMU' (of the appellant) and 'RAMAA' (of the respondents), are phonetically similar. He submits that the appellant is admittedly the proprietor and the prior user of the mark, having adopted the same honestly and in a bona fide manner in the year 1995, through her predecessor, the Late Shri Ramavtar Aggarwal. The appellant is also the registered proprietor of the said mark in various forms and for various goods under Class 29. The appellant also has registrations in copyright for artistic works involved in the said trade mark/label/trade-dress, under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. Referring to the plaint filed before the learned ADJ, he submits that the appellant had sales of Rs.33,22,23,091/- (Rupees Thirty-Three Crore Twenty-Two Lakh Twenty-Three Thousand Ninety-One only) in the financial year 2017-18 alone. He submits that the respondents have given no explanation for adopting a deceptively-similar mark for identical goods as that of the appellant.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant became aware of the existence of the respondents/defendants in the suit only in the second week of February 2019. On further inquiry, it came to the knowledge of the appellant that the respondents have obtained registration of its mark on a 'proposed to be used' basis vide application no. 3772367 under Class 29, filed on 07.03.2018. The appellant has also filed an application seeking rectification of the said mark and the said proceedings are pending. He submits that therefore, not only did the appellant have a good prima facie case in its favour but also had the balance of convenience in its favour and against the respondents, as the respondents have adopted the deceptively-similar mark just prior to the filing of the suit.

6. He submits that the learned ADJ has made an artificial distinction between the outer packaging and the inner packaging adopted by the respondents. He submits that the trade marks 'RAMU' and 'RAMAA', which form a pre-dominant part of the packaging, being deceptively similar, the othe