A party acknowledging the ownership of a trademark through contracts cannot later dispute that ownership, resulting in an injunction against its use of the same mark.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J.:

C.M.No.54203-54204/2022

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of.

FAO(OS) No.326/2022 & C.M.Nos.54201-54202/2022

1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the interim order dated 01st December, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CS (COMM) No. 828/2022, whereby the Appellant-Defendant has been restrained from using or selling any product under the Respondent- Plaintiff's trademarks being `SADANAND', `TADAAKHA' and `BASANT'.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Defendant states that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned injunction order without considering that the Respondent-Plaintiff had bypassed the statutory provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Court Act, 2015, which prescribes pre-institution mediation as a mandatory requirement.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Defendant states that the learned Single Judge erred in granting injunction against the Appellant-Defendant solely on the ground of resemblance of the marks "SADANAND", "TADAAKHA" and "BASANT" without considering the fact the above three marks had been used prior in time by the Appellant-Defendant. In support of his contention, he relies upon the emails dated 20th February, 2018 and 04th February, 2019 as well as letter dated 18th January, 2020.

4. He also states that the Respondent-Plaintiff despite being aware of registration of the trademarks `VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD', `VEDA SADANAND GOLD' and `VEDA BASANT GOLD' by the Appellant- Defendant w.e.f. 07th August, 2021 had suppressed this fact in the plaint. In any event, according to him, the use of the additional word `VEDA' by the Appellant-Defendant constitutes a sufficient distinction and rules out any possibility of confusion between the products being sold by the Appellant- Defendant and the Respondent-Plaintiff.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Defendant lastly relies upon the letter dated 11th April, 2022 wherein the Respondent-Plaintiff had been informed that the Appellant-Defendant would be selling its own cotton seed packaging under the marks `VEDA SADANAND GOLD BGII' and `VEDA BASANT GOLD BGII'.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent-Plaintiff states that the letter dated 11th April, 2022 is a forged and fabricated letter. He emphasises that the said letter is not a part of the trial Court record and bears no reference number unlike all other letters written by the Appellant- Defendant to the Respondent-Plaintiff.

7. He emphasises that the Respondent-Plaintiff is the prior user and registrant of the three marks in question. In support of his contention, he relies upon para 27 of the impugned order which reads as under:

"The Respondent-Plaintiff has been selling the aforesaid varieties/hybrids under its trademarks, as per the details below:

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the Appellant-Defendant had been selling seeds under the said marks since 2014 by virtue of the authority and power conferred by Respondent- Plaintiff under Marketing Agreement which were renewed on an annual basis. In the Marketing Agreements the Appellant-Defendant has admitted and acknowledged that the three marks in question are owned by the Respondent-Plaintiff. The relevant portion of the Marketing A