Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Shrinath Travel Agency – Appellant
Versus
Infinity Infoway Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
IA 20396/2023 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC)
1. Summons, in this suit, as also notice in the present application, were issued on 13 October 2023. Notice in the present application was made returnable on 1 November 2023.
2. Ms. Karuna Nundy learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, points out that notice stands served on all the defendants and speed post tracking reports have also been placed on record. The Registry also reports that notice separately stands served by the registry on Defendant 3.
3. Despite this matter having been called out twice today, there is no appearance on behalf of any of the defendants. Nor has any of the defendants condescended to place on record any response to the present application.
4. I have, therefore, heard Ms. Karuna Nundy for the plaintiff and proceed to dispose of the present application.
5. The plaintiffs seek, by means of the present application, interlocutory injunction, pending disposal of the suit, restraining the Defendant 3 from using the mark 
, Defendant 4 from using the marks Shrinath Tourist Agency, Shrinath Nandu Travels, 
and 
and Defendant 5 from using the mark 
.
6. The plaintiffs are the proprieto
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, to determine trademark infringement, likelihood of confusion, and the balance of convenience and irre....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the likelihood of confusion as a key factor in determining trademark infringement under Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The judgment also cla....
The court affirmed the registered trademark holder's rights against similar marks and clarified standards for proving prior use and confusion under trademark law.
The court affirmed that prior use of a registered trademark provides substantial grounds for an injunction against similar marks, emphasizing deceptive similarity effects on consumer perception.
An interim injunction requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable injury, which were not established by the plaintiff.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiff to a permanent injunction for passing off its mark 'SANDHI SUDHA' and the consideration of the defendants' non-rep....
The principle of prior user of a trademark prevails over subsequent registrations, especially when confusion or association is likely between goods and services of similar trade sectors.
The defendant was entitled to the benefit of defense under Section 35 of the Act as it had been using the mark 'VASUNDHARA' in a bona fide manner since 2001.
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
