SUDESH BANSAL
Vankon Modular Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Vanton Switchgears And Cables – Respondent
ORDER
1. The instant civil misc. appeal under Section 43 Rule 1 CPC has been filed by appellant-plaintiff, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.2.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metro-I, Headquarter Sanganer, District Jaipur, dismissing the application for temporary injunction.
2. Heard counsel for both parties, perused the impugned order and material available on record.
3. It appears that appellant-plaintiff instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1999') against respondent-defendant for infringement of its registered trademark in brand name 'VANKON' under different classes i.e. 7, 9, 11, 21 and 35. The main dispute is in respect of infringement of trademark under class 9, wherein plaintiff has got registered its trademark in the brand name 'VANKON' having registration No.2823109 dated 9.10.2014. Respondent-defendant has got registered its trademark in brand name 'VANTON', under class 9 having registration No.3293881 dated 25.6.2016. In respect of other classes i.e. 7, 11, 21 and 35, counsel for respondent-defend
![]()

Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. vs. Coca Cola Co. (1995) 5 SCC 545)
Patel Field Marshal Agencies vs. P.M. Diesels Limited (2018) 2 SCC 112)
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha vs. Prius Auto Industries Limited (2018) 2 SCC 1)
A plaintiff must prove prior use of a trademark to obtain a temporary injunction, and delays in seeking relief can adversely affect the case.
An interim injunction requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable injury, which were not established by the plaintiff.
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 injuncti....
The defendant was entitled to the benefit of defense under Section 35 of the Act as it had been using the mark 'VASUNDHARA' in a bona fide manner since 2001.
A plaintiff must use their registered trademark to claim infringement; failure to do so undermines the basis for an injunction.
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.