The central legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Sections 28 to 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, in the context of infringement of a registered trade mark.

M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/applicants in O.A.No.378 of 2010 in C.S.No.341 of 2010, questioning the order dated 10.12.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in the above application declining to grant an order of interim injunction pending suit.

2. Facts in Brief:

The appellants are the Proprietors of the Trademark "Aachi". The first appellant secured the registration of trademark "Aachi" in the year 1999 with respect to masalas and spices. Thereafter, it secured 51 other registrations of trademark "Aachi" in various labels and cartons. The respondent, which was incorporated as "Aachi Cargo Channels Private Limited" under the Companies Act, 1956, was dealing with cargo services transporting various goods. The appellants filed a suit in C.S.No.341 of 2010 on the file of this Court alleging infringement on the part of the respondent of their registered trade mark. The appellants also filed an application before the Regional Director of Companies, seeking to cancel and rectify the name "Aachi Cargo Channels Private Limited" under Section 20 of the Companies Act, 1956. Pending the suit filed for permanent injunction, the appellants had filed an application in O.A.No.378 of 2010 in C.S.No.341 of 2010 seeking temporary injunction. The learned single Judge, by a detailed order, after considering the submissions made by both sides, was pleased to dismiss the application on 10.12.2011. Challenging the order of the learned single Judge, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

3. Submission of the Appellants:

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the appellants, being the registered Proprietors of the trade mark "Aachi", the respondent cannot be permitted to use the same and therefore, the learned single Judge ought to have granted an order of interim injunction. By virtue of the statutory right conferred under Trade Marks Act, 1999, the appellants enjoyed the exclusive right over the trade mark "Aachi". The appellants continue to enjoy reputation over their registered trade mark, which can never be permitted to be used by the respondent. The mere fact that the respondent is doing business in cargo service by itself cannot be a ground to refuse an order of injunction. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned single Judge has not considered the scope and ambit of Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Therefore, the appeal will have to be allowed. In support of her contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:

(i) Caterpiller Inc., Illinois USA, V. Jorange and another (O.S.A.No.166/1997 in C.S.No.785 of 1996 decided on 01.10.1997);

(ii) Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft and another V. Hybo Hindustan (AIR 1994 Delhi 239).

4. Submissions of the Respondent:-

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that admittedly the appellants and the respondent are operating in two different and distinct fields having no connection whatsoever with each other. There is no similarity of goods manufactured and the service rendered by the parties. There is no likelihood of causing any confusion in the minds of the public that the business of the respondent is that of the appellants. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal deserves to be rejected.

5. DISCUSSION:-

5.1. The facts are not in dispute. Even though the appellants are the Proprietors of the registered Trade Mark "Aachi", the operation of the business of the parties are totally different. The appellants are primarily dealing with masalas and spices. The registrations of 51 trade mark "Aachi" in various labels and cartons would show that the appellants never dealt with the cargo services carried on by the respondent. In a suit for infringement, the Courts are primarily concerned with the label as a whole which may also contain the name. Admittedly, the label reflecting the masalas and spices of the appellants has not