This civil mis. appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.11.2013, passed by the Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the trial court'). Thereby the trial court has allowed the respondent-plaintiff-applicant-company's (hereinafter 'the applicant-Company') application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and injuncted the appellant-defendant-non-applicant-firm (hereinafter 'the non-applicant-firm') from using its trademark “ZARI” (as is appropriately detailed hereinafter) or similarly deceptive mark or otherwise passing off its own manufactures under the mark “ZARI” (by Anu Shankar) as that of the applicant-Company.

The applicant-Company states to be a leading manufacturer, trader and retailer of bridal, party wear, traditional and casual wear, sarees, salwar suits, kurtis, lehengas, blouse, bridemaids gown etc. under a registered trademark under class 24 with the word ZARI as stylized since 2005. The applicant-Company's trademark as registered was as under :

It was stated that its trademark distinguishes the goods of the applicant-Company from that of others and has purportedly acquired tremendous reputation and goodwill due to high quality of goods sold under it. It was stated that the applicant-Company has seven branches at Jaipur, Mumbai, Bangalore, Raipur, Indore, Jodhpur & Udaipur selling its products sarees, salwar suits, kurti, lehnghas etc. wherefrom its turnover ran into crores of rupees. It was alleged that the non-applicant-firm had adopted and was using a similar trademark “ZARI” for similar goods seeking to take unfair advantage which correspondingly worked to the detriment of the profits, distinct character and reputation attached with the applicant's trademark ZARI. The non-applicant-firm's offending trade mark was centered as the word “ZARI” in capital letters with artistic design deceptively similar and was as under:

It was further stated that aside of the registered trademark ZARI in respect of class 24 under the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 2002'), the applicant-Company has been allowed registration of the trademark with the word 'ZARI' in respect of other classes of goods such as in 25, 27, 35 and 40. Further applications for registration of the trademark ZARI in more of the classes under the Rules of 2002 was stated to be pending. In these circumstances, it was claimed stated that the applicant-Company thus had acquired an exclusive right to use the mark/word 'ZARI' on its products in class 24 and others and to restrain others from using the said trademark or a mark deceptively similar or attempt to ride and profit on the applicant-Company's goodwill and reputation by passing off their own manufactures as that of the applicant-Company. The allegation also was that the style of writing of the word 'ZARI' by the non-applicant-firm as also the font, the composition and label design was closely and deceptively similar to the applicant-company's trademark 'ZARI'. It was further submitted that the non-applicant-firm was confusing and deceiving the customers and made them believe that the goods offered to them originated from the applicant-Company. Injunction as an interim measure during the pendency of the main suit for permanent injunction against the non-applicant-firm was sought.

In reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC before the trial court, the non-applicant-firm denied the allegations of the applicant-Company on preliminary legal grounds as also on the merit of the applicant-Company's case. To begin with, it was stated that a large number of persons, traders, firms, institutions and companies etc. were using the word 'ZARI' as part of their business and had different labels registered or otherwise including the word 'ZARI'. The word ZARI in common parlance as also in its dictionary meaning meant a thread traditionally made of fine gold and silver for use on traditional Indian, Pakistani garments to weave intricate patterns t