Prior user rights are paramount in trademark disputes and override mere registration claims, necessitating robust evidence to support any injunction requests.

Headnote:(A) Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 105 and 106 - Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 51, 55 and 62 - Dismissal of interim injunction applications - Disputed trademarks KUNDAN and KUNDAN CAB between Appellant and Respondent - Appellant claims prior use and assignment rights from 1975. Court found that the learned Trial Court appropriately dismissed applications based on the Appellant's inconsistent user claims and inadequate evidence to support its case for an injunction. (Paras 2, 19-22)

(B) Intellectual Property Rights - Prior use superior to registration - Court emphasizes that the right of prior user is crucial in trademark disputes, and registration alone does not confer exclusivity if prior user is established. (Paras 20-22)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant and Respondent have been engaged in a long-standing trademark dispute concerning KUNDAN and KUNDAN CAB, with the Appellant asserting prior user from 1975 based on Assignment Deeds, while the Respondent claims prior use from 1981. (Paras 3, 7-10)

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court found inconsistencies in the Appellant's claims of trademark use and decided against granting interim relief based on the established principles governing injunctions. (Paras 19-22)

Issues: The main issues involved were the determination of prior user rights, the validity of the Appellant's assignment claims, and whether the Trial Court had exercised its discretion appropriately. (Paras 19-22)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld the Trial Court's discretion, emphasizing the importance of prior user rights and the insufficiency of the Appellant's submitted evidence to warrant an injunction. (Paras 20-22)

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of trademark dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. arguments of the parties regarding trademark rights (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court's analysis on the maintainability of appeals and prior user principle (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. conclusion and order of the court (Para 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. Present Appeals have been filed by the Appellant assailing the common order dated 30.11.2018 passed by learned Trial Court in suits bearing TM Nos. 70/2010, 71/2010, 72/2010 and 73/2010 and counter-claim bearing TM No. 7/2015. On account of the similitude of facts and common questions of law as well as the fact that the impugned order is a common order, the appeals are being decided by a common judgment.

2. The learned Trial Court has vide the impugned order dated 30.11.2018, dismissed the interim injunction applications filed by the Appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, 1908. Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in TM No.70/2010 while Appellant herein is the Plaintiff in the remaining three suits before the Trial Court. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their litigating status before this Court.

3. As per the averments in the appeals, Appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of wide range of electrical goods including electrical accessories, switches, wires and cables, electric irons, etc. under the trademarks KUNDAN and KUNDAN CAB (label). Respondent is engaged in the business of manufacturing all types of high-class electrical P.V.C. wires and cables under the trademarks KUNDAN and KUNDAN CABLE (label).

4. Litigation between the parties is stated to have originated when Appellant filed a complaint under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 against an unknown person on 14.01.1994. Subsequently on 05.03.1994, impugned goods under the impugned trademark were seized from M/s Madras Cable Agencies, alleged distributor of the Respondent. As a counterblast, Respondent filed a suit before this Court for permanent injunction and thereafter, Appellant filed three suits against the Respondent as well as a counter-claim in the suit filed by the Respondent, each of which are subject matters of the present appeals.

5. As per the chronology of dates and events set out in the appeals, suit bearing TM No. 70/2010 was filed by the Respondent on 14.04.1994 before this Court, under Sections 105 and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the use of trademark KUNDAN/KUNDAN CAB in relation to electric wires, P.V.C. cables and allied goods, amounting to passing off. On 30.04.2002, plaint was amended and finally, the suit was transferred to the Trial Court.

6. On 08.09.1994, Appellant filed a suit under Sections 51, 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 before this Court, seeking permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing the copyright of the Plaintiff in the artistic work in `KUNDAN CAB' (label), used in relation to electrical wires and cables as well as passing off. This suit was also transferred to the Trial Court and re-numbered as TM No. 71/2010. On 20.06.1995, second suit was filed by the Appellant against M/s Kundan Cables (India), seeking permanent injunction against the Respondent from directly or indirectly using the trademark KUNDAN/KUNDAN CABLES and KUNDANCAB as well as damages in the sum of Rs.5,00,500/-, which was transferred to the Trial Court and re-numbered as TM No. 73/2010. Third suit was filed by the Appellant on 24.11.2006 under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 in this Court against M/s Kundan Cable (India) Private Limited, seeking permanent injunction from using the impugned trademark/trade name KUNDAN/M/S KUNDAN CABLES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. or any other trademark/tradename identical with or deceptively similar to Appellant's trademark KUNDAN/KUNDAN CAB registered under No.507445 in Class 09 as wel