Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
M/s. Aadhar Products Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Authorized Representative Navneet Laddna, S/o. Shri Ramesh Chandra Laddha - Appellant
Versus
M/s Lotus Organic Care, Through Its Proprietor Shri Harish Dadhich, S/o. Shri Govind Lal Dadhich - Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3417 Of 2018
Decided On : 10-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Dr. Ashok Soni, Mr. Hemant Dutt.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vineet Dave, Mr. Divyanshu Choudhary.

The court emphasized the importance of weighing the interests of contesting parties and the limited scope for interference with the trial court's discretion in granting or refusing temporary injunction.

Headnote:
Trademark Infringement - Trade Marks Act, 1999, Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 420 and 482 IPC, Section 65 of the Copyright Act, Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a company engaged in manufacturing washing powder under the name 'Decide', filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent, alleging infringement of their trademark and copyright. The appellant sought a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from selling their product 'Delite' in similar packaging. The trial court rejected the application for temporary injunction, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The court observed that the law regarding grant/refusal of temporary injunction is clear and made observations regarding the same. It found that the trial court's view was reasonable and directed the trial court to decide the original suit expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Issues: Prima facie case of infringement, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and the validity of the registered trademark were the key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to weigh the interests of contesting parties and ascertain the balance of convenience. It also highlighted the limited scope for interference with the trial court's discretion in granting or refusing temporary injunction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to decide the original suit expeditiously, preferably within six months.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C. with the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff that the present Civil Misc. Appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 6.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Udaipur Camp Mavli may kindly be set aside and the application for Temporary Injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff may kindly be allowed and pending final hearing and disposal of the suit respondents/defendants may be restrained from selling heir product washing powder by the name of “Delite” and in the similar packaging/pouch as that of the appellant/plaintiff.

Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.”

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by Mr.M.S. Singhvi and Dr. Ashok Soni, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Hemant Dutt, appearing on behalf of the appellant, are as follows:

2.1 The appellant is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of various detergents products, bath soaps, soap sticks, bleaching and laundry products. It is manufacturing the washing powder in the name and style of “Decide” since 03.03.2006.

2.2 The appellant got its product “Decide” registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957 in accordance with which, it has acquired the exclusive right of using this trade mark, design, colour combination, artistic work, etc. being its owner.

2.3 The appellant began using the trade mark “Decide” since 03.03.2006 and at the time, no other product of a similar mark was available in the market. The washing powder “Decide” has garnered a goodwill and a reputation in the market.

2.4 The respondent/defendant M/s. Lotus Organic Care and its proprietor Mr. Harish Dadhich started the production and sale of its product, washing/detergent powder “Delite”, and on 19.06.2012, the appellant served a legal notice to Mr. Harish Dadhich to stop the manufacturing and sale of washing powder in the name of 'Delite' with immediate effect.

2.5 On 11.05.2013, an FIR, bearing No. 132/2013, was lodged at Police Station, Dabok, Udaipur against the respondent no. 2 for the offences under Sections 420 and 482 IPC, Section 65 of the Copyright Act and Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act. The respondent No. 2-Shri Harish Dadhich was carrying on the business of M/s. Lotus Organic Care (which at the time was M/s. Lotus Organ Corporation, situated at 185, Mewar Industrial Area, Udaipur). On 12.05.2013, the complete machinery of the said proprietorship was seized by the concerned police authorities. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 shifted his place of business from Udaipur to Bhilwara and carried on the same business under the name and style of ‘M/s. Lotus Organic Care’.

2.6 On 10.04.2018, the appellant came to know that respondents restarted production of the washing/detergent powder “Delite” from Bhilwara, as a consequence of which the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur. The respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 11.05.2018, which was rejected by the learned trial Court on 07.07.2018. The respondent then filed a Revision, titled S.B. Civil Revision No. 102/2018, before this Hon'ble Court challenging the aforesaid order of the learned Trial Court, dated 07.07.2018, which came to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 18.07.2018.

2.7 The learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 06.10.2018 rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant, with the reasoning that the prayer made in the Civil Suit as well as in the application for temporary injunction was similar. The said order dated 06.10.2018 is under challenge in the p