Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Zeal Biotech Private Limited - Respondent
CS(COMM) 552 of 2023 & I.A. 15128 of 2023
Decided On : 26-09-2023
Interim Injunction - Trademark Infringement - The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark ZEKUF or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark ZECUF, pending disposal of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking an interim injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application and directed the defendant and all others acting on its behalf not to deal with products using the impugned mark ZEKUF or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark ZECUF, pending disposal of the suit.
Issues: Trademark infringement, interim injunction
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the likelihood of confusion and damage to the plaintiff's trademark rights and granted the interim injunction to prevent further use of the impugned mark by the defendant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application for interim injunction and disposed of the matter with the direction to the defendant to refrain from using the impugned mark or any similar mark pending disposal of the suit.
ORDER (Oral)
IA 15128/2023 [under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC]
1. Notice was issued, in this application, filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), on 14 August 2023.
2. No reply has been filed to the application though a written statement has been filed by way of response to the suit.
3. Mr. Chander Shekhar, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant initially submits that, if the plaintiff is willing to abandon its claim to costs and damages, the defendant is agreeable to suffer a decree in terms of the prayers in the plaint. Mr. Prithvi Singh, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, however, submits that his client has not instructed him to give up the prayer for costs though he may not press for damages.
4. In that view of the matter, the suggestion of learned Counsel for the defendant cannot be accepted.
5. Mr. Chander Shekhar does not oppose the prayer for grant of interim injunction as he submits that his client is not intending to use the impugned mark ZEKUF for any further stock to be manufactured by it.
6. In that view of the matter, IA 15128/2023 is disposed of with the direction to the defendant and all others acting on its behalf not to deal, directly or indirectly, with any products using the impugned mark ZEKUF or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark ZECUF, pending disposal of the suit.
7. IA 15128/2023 stands allowed accordingly.
8. The Court is not passing any interim order with respect to any stocks which have already been released in the market.
CS(COMM) 552/2023
9. List before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) for completion of pleadings, admission and denial of the documents and marking of exhibits on 16 October 2023, whereafter the matter would be placed before the Court for case management hearing and further proceedings.
The court can grant an interim injunction to prevent trademark infringement and protect the rights of the trademark owner.
“3A Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which....
Availability of alternative effective remedy and the importance of disclosing all relevant facts in legal proceedings
A stay of trademark infringement proceedings under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act does not prohibit the court from adjudicating and passing orders on pending interlocutory applications, including....
The findings in the interlocutory applications order should not be a binding factor in the suit's decision, and the suit should be decided independently and uninfluenced by the interim order.
A trial court must address all claims for interim relief, and any failure to adequately consider such claims necessitates appellate intervention.
The court emphasized that misleading statements in seeking ex-parte injunctions undermine judicial integrity, warranting vacating such orders.
An interim injunction requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable injury, which were not established by the plaintiff.
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
