Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL, J
Dhanvarsha Oil Mills Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Hari Industrieshari Oil Mill – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court noted misuse of stay order (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. defendant's actions justified modification (Para 15) |
| 3. stay order modified (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
Order :
1. This Order will dispose of the application (IA No.2/2024) filed by and on behalf of respondent-plaintiff- M/s Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill), pursuant to the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, praying for variation of the stay order dated 05.10.2016 passed by this Court.
2. Heard respective Senior Counsels, appeared for and on behalf of appellant-defendant & respondent-plaintiff.
3. The present first appeal has been preferred by the defendant, impugning the final judgment & decree dated 12.05.2016 passed by the Additional Distinct Judge No.1, Bharatpur in Civil Suit No.9/2009, whereby and whereunder the suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent-plaintiff under the provisions of Trade Marks Act, 1999, has been decreed and the appellant-defendant has been restrained by the decree of permanent injunction in following terms:-
3. It is undisputed fact on record that the first appeal has been admitted for hearing and during course of hearing of the first appeal, execution & implementation of
The court modified the stay order to prevent consumer deception due to the defendant's imitation of the plaintiff's trademark packaging.
if there is no infirmity found in the order of the Trial Court, injunction against encashment of bank guarantee and letter of credit should not be granted except where fraud or irretrievable damage i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adoption of a similar trade dress, including color scheme, with a dishonest intention to infringe a well-known trademark and pass off good....
The court emphasized that misleading statements in seeking ex-parte injunctions undermine judicial integrity, warranting vacating such orders.
A plaintiff must use their registered trademark to claim infringement; failure to do so undermines the basis for an injunction.
The court held that while both parties have registered trademarks, the evidence does not substantiate exclusive rights to either mark as both were deemed to not have been adopted bona fide.
The court held that trademark and trade dress can attain distinctiveness over time; sudden changes in competitors' branding could constitute passing off if it causes public confusion.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
