The appellate court respects the trial court's discretion in granting or refusing temporary injunctions unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse.

ORDER :

Sudesh Bansal, J.

1. Heard counsel for both parties on civil miscellaneous appeal so also on application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by appellant and perused the record.

2. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(R) CPC, assailing the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, dismissing her application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

3. Appellant-plaintiff has filed a suit along with an application for temporary injunction under the provisions of Trademarks Act, 1999, alleging inter alia that she is a registered trademark holder of a trade-name "Ayurveda Sangraha", a book written and published by her deceased husband Sh. Govind Pareek and such trade-name is being used since 2005 onwards. Appellant make out a case against respondent-defendant that in the year 2023, she came to know that defendant has started publication of an ayurveda book in the name of "Dhananjay Ayurveda Sangraha" which is deceptively similar to the trade-name of the ayurveda book, for which plaintiff is having registered trademark. Hence, respondent be restrained by way of temporary injunction, not to publish the ayurveda book using trade-name "Dhananjay Ayurveda Sangraha".

4. Respondent-defendant resisted the application for temporary injunction and submitted that there is no similarity in the trade- name between "Ayurveda Sangraha" and "Dhananjay Ayurveda Sangraha" and further, the name 'ayurvedha' is a common name, on which no-one can claim proprietorship. In addition, it was submitted that the book sold and published by respondent- defendant is of entirely different size, colour combination and by apparent look of the two books, there is no possibility of confusion among their respective buyers, in respect of their similarity. Hence, application for temporary injunction is liable to be rejected.

5. The trial Court, after considering respective case of both parties and after appreciating the two books & other relevant documents, rejected the application for temporary injunction by recording a categorical fact finding in following manner:-

^^12- tgka rd mDr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds izdk'k esa gLrxr izdj.k dk laca/k gS] izkfFkZ;k ds fy, ;g lkfcr djuk vko';d gS fd vizkFkhZ ds }kjk izkfFkZ;k ds iathc) VªsMekdZ ds uke dk bl izdkj iz;ksx fd;k tk jgk gS fd mDr nksuksa uke brus le:i gks] ftuls fdlh O;fDr ds izoafpr gksus o Hkwy esa iM+us dh laHkkouk ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gks rFkk ftlls izkfFkZ;k ds iathc) VªsMekdZ ds uke dh [;kfr ds mi;ksx o vigkfu o O;kikj dks uqdlku gksus dh laHkkouk gksA tSlk fd iwoZ esa foospu fd;k tk pqdk gS fd vizkFkhZ vf/koDrk }kjk nkSjkus cgl U;k;ky; ds le{k izkfFkZ;k ds iathc) VªsMekdZ ls feyrs&tqyrs uke dh iwoZ ls gh izpfyr fdrkcsa rFkk izkfFkZ;k dh o Lo;a dh fdrkcksa dks is'k fd;k x;k gS rFkk ftuds doj ist dh QksVks izfr i=koyh ij gSA mDr iqLrdksa ds vkdkj] 'kCn] fp=.k bR;kfn dks ns[kus ek= ls ;g Li"Vr% ,d&nwljs ls fHkUu izrhr gksrh gSA vr% U;k;ky; ds erkuqlkj fdlh izdkj ;g laHko ugha gS fd dksbZ O;fDr bl Hkqykos esa iM+ tk;s fd izkfFkZ;k ds iathc) VªsMekdZ ^vk;qosZn&laxzg* uke dh iqLrd rFkk vizkFkhZ }kjk fodz; dh tkus okyh ^/kuat; vk;qosZn laxzg* uke dh iqLrd leku gksA mYys[kuh; gS fd mDr nksuksa gh iqLrdksa ds doj ist ds QksVks] 'kCn bR;kfn lHkh Li"Vr% fHkUu nf'kZr gSA lkFk gh nksuksa iqLrdks dk vkdkj Hkh fHkUu gSA vr% fdlh izdkj ls bl U;k;ky; ds fouez erkuqlkj ;g nf'kZr ugha gS fd vizkFkhZ dh mDr iqLrd ds dkj.k dksbZ Hkh O;fDr Hkqykos esa vk; tk;s fd mDr iqLrd izkfFkZ;k dh gh gSA vr% ckn xkSj mijksDr foospu ds izdk'k esa izkfFkZ;k ds i{k esa fdlh izdkj izFke n`"V;k ekeyk cuuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA vr% mDr fcUnq izkfFkZ;k ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA**

6. Having perused the front cover-page of both the books, available on record as also the original books shown by counsel for respondents during course of arguments, prima facie this Court does not find any arbitrariness, illegality and perversity in the fac