SUNITA AGARWAL, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Vikas Oil Industries – Appellant
Versus
Mangrol Oil Mill – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sunita Agarwal, CJ.) :
1. The instant appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Commercial Court Judge, Morbi on an interim injunction application Exhibit 5 in a suit for infringement of the trade mark and passing off as also for rendition of accounts and damages. The relief claimed in the suit are for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants through their proprietor, partners, servants, agents, etc. all persons associated or connected with the business of the defendants from adopting and/or using the impugned marks “Rose” and/ or “Rose”/ “Gulab” in any manner or from adopting or using any marks identically or deceptively similar to the registered trade mark “Gulab”, which is a prior used trade mark of the plaintiffs in respect of business of their groundnut oils, edible oils and cooking oils of whatsoever nature. On the plea of commission of the acts of passing off by the defendants, permanent injunction has been sought.
2. During the pendency of the suit, Exhibit 5 interim
Neon Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Medical Technologies Ltd.
S. Syed Mohideen vs. P. Sulochana Bai
Alka Gupta vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta
Premlata @ Sunita vs. Naseeb Bee
Power Control Appliance vs. Sumeet Machines Private Ltd.
Rupa and Company vs. Dawn Mills Co. Ltd.
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors.
Mandali Ranganna and Ors. Vs. T. Ramachandra and Ors.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Prius Auto Industries Ltd
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 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 appellant's prior use of the trade mark 'Shriphal' and the effect of non-renewal of trade mark registration were central to the court's decision.
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.
Important Point :The use of a trademark that is phonetically and visually similar to a registered trademark can lead to confusion, constituting infringement, especially when dishonest conduct is evid....
The failure to renew a trademark registration leads to abandonment, allowing subsequent users to claim rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.