Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 328
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J
Rajani Products, Through Its Partner Kamal Rajani - Appellant
Versus
Bhagwan Das Harwani S/o Unknown, Prop. Parwati Oil Manufacture - Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2198/2020
Decided On : 19-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Shruvan Kumar Bansal for Mr. Kapil Gupta Mr. R.S. Sinsinwar
For the Respondent: None Present
The court established that a prima facie case for trademark infringement warrants prompt injunctions to prevent irreparable harm and protect public interest.
Headnote:
(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC - Appeal against rejection of interim injunction - Petitioner holds registered trademark 'Swastik' since 1983, alleging infringement by respondents using 'Shree Parwati Swastik' - Court finds prima facie case for granting ad-interim relief, noting similarity in trademarks and potential irreparable injury to petitioner. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 12)
(B) Intellectual Property Rights - Principle of granting injunction in cases of blatant violation - Prompt orders are necessary to protect aggrieved parties and public interest. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit against respondents for using an identical trademark, claiming significant business losses due to infringement. The petitioner previously obtained an injunction against another firm for similar trademark use. (Paras 3, 7)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the respondents' trademark is deceptively similar to the petitioner's, warranting an injunction until the main suit is resolved. (Paras 8, 12)
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to an interim injunction against the respondents for trademark infringement. (Paras 4, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for prompt injunctions in intellectual property cases to prevent irreparable harm and protect public interest. (Paras 9, 10)
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is quashed, restraining the respondents from using the trademark 'Swastik' until the suit's final disposal.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with reference indications:
-
The court emphasized that a prima facie case for trademark infringement warrants prompt interim relief to prevent irreparable harm and safeguard public interest (!) (!) (!) .
-
The petitioner holds a registered trademark for the word "Swastik" since 1983 and has been extensively using it in connection with edible oils, which the respondents allegedly infringe upon by using a similar trademark "Shree Parwati Swastik" (!) .
-
The respondent's trademark is visually, phonetically, and structurally similar to the petitioner’s, leading to a finding of deceptive similarity and potential infringement (!) .
-
The court found that the respondents’ use of the infringing trademark and labels amounts to infringement of the petitioner’s registered trademark and copyright, and that such infringement causes significant business losses (!) (!) .
-
A prima facie case for granting interim relief was established, with the court noting the likelihood of irreparable injury to the petitioner if relief is not granted (!) .
-
The court highlighted the importance of prompt injunctions in cases of blatant intellectual property rights violations to protect both individual rights and public interest (!) .
-
The court observed that similar interim orders had been granted in related cases involving the same trademark, and that these orders had attained finality, which influenced the decision to grant the injunction in this case (!) .
-
The impugned order rejecting the interim injunction was quashed, and the respondents were restrained from using the "Swastik" trademark and its label on their products until the final disposal of the main suit (!) .
-
The decision was made solely for the purpose of disposing of the interim relief application; the trial court is directed to decide the main case based on the evidence without influence from this order (!) .
-
All pending applications, including stay applications, were also disposed of along with this order (!) .
Please let me know if you need further assistance or specific legal analysis.
Order :
1. The Bench having roster of “Intellectual Property Rights Matters” has marked this appeal as an exception, hence, the Honb’le the Chief Justice has assigned the instant matter to this Court vide notesheet dated 08.08.2023
2. The instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the impugned order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Kota in Civil Suit No.76/2019 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as ‘Trade Marks Act’) has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents restraining them to use the word “Swastik” and its label upon their products. Counsel submits that along with suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was submitted for passing interim orders till disposal of the suit, restraining the defendant- respondent from using the word “Swastik” and its label. Counsel submits that the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the Court below. Counsel submits that under the similar circumstances, another suit was filed by the petitioner against one proprietory firm-Shanker Oil Mill, who were also using the same trade mark and label for which the trade mark certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner.
4. Counsel submits during pendency of the said suit against Shanker Oil Mill, the temporary injunction application submitted by the petitioner was allowed by the same Court i.e. by the Additional District Judge No.2, Kota vide order dated 30.08.2022, who rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 and Rule 1 and 2 by the impugned order, in the present writ petition. Counsel submits that injunction was granted against the said firm-Shanker Oil Mill, restraining them to use the word Swastik and its label, as trade mark for the purpose of selling edible oil, till final disposal of the suit. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court on 30.08.2022 was assailed by the said firm-Shanker Oil Mill before this Court by filing S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2925/2022, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2024. Counsel submits that the controversy involved in both the matters is similar and identical, and once an interim order was passed in identical matters then it was enjoined upon the Trial Court to take the similar view and pass the same order in favour of the petitioner, till final disposal of the suit. But to the dismay of the petitioner two contradictory and conflicting orders have been passed by the Court below with regard to the same issue involved in both suits.
5. This Court issued notice to the respondents and inspite of service of notice, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.
7. The petitioner has been holding the registered trademark for the word "Swastik" and its associated label since 1983 and has been using it in connection with the business of edible oils. The petitioner claims that the respondents are using an identical trademark and label under the name 'Shree Parwati Swastik', which amounts to a violation of the Trade Marks Act and has caused significant losses to the petitioner’s business. The case of the petitioner is that over the years, the petitioner-company has openly, continuously, and extensively used the trademark 'Swastik' along with the design/symbol '卐' and the company name Rajani Products on the packaging and labeling of oils and other products. The petitioner alleges that the respondents’ use of a nearly identical and deceptively similar trademark constitutes an infringement of its registered trademark. The petitioner seeks to restrain the respondents from using the infringing trademark and label until the final disposal of the suit.
8. Peru
