1999 Supreme(Gau) 382

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
A.P.Singh, J.
Ram Kumar -Appellant
Versus
J.M.Agarwal Tobacco Company Ltd. -Respondent
First Appeal (from) Order No. 79 of 1999
Decided On : 02-12-1999

Courts have the power to grant appropriate relief in keeping with the case of the parties and the interest of justice, even if it is different from the relief claimed in the suit or injunction application.

Headnote:

TRADEMARK - INFRINGEMENT - JURISDICTION - INJUNCTION - TERRITORIAL LIMITS - RELIEF - SCOPE - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 105/106 OF THE TRADE AND MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1958 - SECTION 55 OF COPY RIGHT ACT 1957 - ORDER 39 RULES 1, 2 AND 7 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 - Held, the Court has the power to grant appropriate relief in keeping with the case of the parties and the interest of justice, even if it is different from the relief claimed in the suit or injunction application.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a registered firm engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, and sale of chewing tobacco with the reputed trademark 'Bandar Chhap Tambacco' or 'Bandar Brand Tobacco' with the device of 'Monkey sitting on the Drum', filed a suit against the defendant for infringement of trademark rights. The defendant, who had a registered trademark for 'Bandar Chhap' in eight specific states, claimed exclusive rights to use the brand in those states and alleged that the plaintiff had violated an agreement not to use the trademark in those states. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the trademark in the North Eastern States.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the plaintiff had a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction order to remove the infringement of his rights by the defendant. The Court held that the defendant's claim to have been using the offending brand name for 30 years without objection from the plaintiff was a matter to be substantiated by evidence at the hearing of the suit and could not be considered at the stage of granting a temporary injunction order.

Issues: 1. Whether the defendant had the right to carry on the business of sale of chewing tobacco in the brand name of Bandar Chhap Tobacco with the device of 'Monkey sitting on the Drum' in a circle throughout the country including the eight States which have been earmarked for the appellant's business? 2. Whether the learned District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing a restraint order against the appellant throughout the North Eastern States, when neither the plaint nor the injunction application sought an injunction outside Guwahati? 3. Whether the learned District Judge possessed jurisdiction and power to issue appropriate orders to be operative within the area in respect whereof he exercises jurisdiction, or whether he could issue direction, writ, or order to allow or restrain any party to any legal proceeding for doing or not doing anything outside his territorial jurisdiction?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the defendant's trademark was confined to the eight states earmarked for his business and did not include the device of 'Monkey sitting on the Drum' in a circle, which was the plaintiff's registered trademark. The Court found that the defendant's use of the offending brand name was markedly similar to the plaintiff's brand and constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's rights. 2. The Court held that the learned District Judge had the power to issue a restraint order against the appellant throughout the North Eastern States, even though the relief clause of the plaint and injunction application did not specifically mention 'the whole North Eastern States'. The Court reasoned that the grievance raised by the plaintiff in the suit was related to his right of sale of tobacco in the brand name in the whole of North Eastern States to the exclusion of the appellant, and that the order was in keeping with the case set up by the plaintiff in his plaint. 3. The Court held that the learned District Judge possessed jurisdiction and power to issue appropriate orders to be operative within the area in respect whereof he exercises jurisdiction, and that he was not limited to checking the wrong doing of the erring party only within that particular area. The Court reasoned that accepting the defendant's argument would create utter confusion and require the wronged person to file cases in every district and various Courts to check the wrongful act of the erring party.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned order of injunction was valid and that the defendant was restrained from using the trademark 'Bandar Chhap Tobacco' with the device of 'Monkey sitting on the Drum' in his packing of chewing tobacco for sale in the North Eastern States.