Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, J.
United Apirits Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Henkel India Limited and Ors. - Respondent
O.A. Nos. 764, 765 & 766 of 2011 in C.S. No. 617 of 2011
Decided On : 13-12-2011
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the conduct of the applicant, particularly in refusing to sign the assignment deed despite the sale consideration being deposited and the clarification obtained, did not justify granting the interim injunction.
Headnote:
Trademark - Interim Injunction - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 2(1)(b), Section 6 - The court discussed the applicant's claim for an interim injunction to restrain the respondents from infringing the registered trademark 'ARAMUSK' and the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court analyzed the agreement between the parties, the obligations of the defendants, and the conduct of the applicant in refusing to sign the assignment deed, ultimately dismissing the application for interim injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought an interim injunction to restrain the respondents from infringing the registered trademark 'ARAMUSK' pending disposal of the suit. The applicant claimed to be the registered owner of the trademark and alleged that the defendants had no right or interest to use the trademark.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conduct of the applicant in refusing to sign the assignment deed, despite the sale consideration being deposited and the clarification obtained from the High Court, did not justify granting the interim injunction. The court held that the applicant did not have a prima facie case and was not entitled to the interim injunction.
Issues: The issues involved the ownership and use of the trademark 'ARAMUSK', the obligations of the parties under the agreement, and the justification for seeking an interim injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the applicant's conduct in not signing the assignment deed, despite the sale consideration being deposited and the clarification obtained, did not justify granting the interim injunction. The court emphasized the principle that the plaintiff should come to court with clean hands.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for interim injunction, citing the lack of prima facie case and entitlement to the injunction. No costs were awarded.
ORDER :
VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, J.
(i) A. No. 764 of 2011:
This application, under Order XIV, Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, read with Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been moved by the applicant/plaintiff, for grant of an-interim injunction, restraining the respondents, their distributors, stockiest, servants, agents, retailers, assigns, representatives or any other person claiming under/through them from in any manner infringing the applicant's registered trademark ARAMUSK by manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, either directly and/or indirectly any goods and in particular cosmetic goods and/or allied products under the trademark 'ARAMUSK' and/or any other mark either in English or any other language, which is identical with and/ or deceptively similar to applicant's registered trademark or in any other manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit.
(ii) A. No. 765 of 2011:
This application, under Order XIV, Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, read with Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been moved by the applicant/plaintiff, for grant of an-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their distributors, stockiest, servants, agents, retailers, assigns, representatives or any other person claiming under/through them from in any manner person claiming under/through them from in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, either directly and /or indirectly any goods and in particular cosmetic goods and/or allied products under trademark 'ARAMUSK' and/or any other mark either in English or any other language, which is identical with and/or deceptively similar to applicant's trademark "ARAMUSK" so as to pass off the respondents' products as and for the products of the applicant or in any other manner whatsoever connected with the applicant, pending disposal of the suit.
(iii) A. No. 766 of 2011:
This application, under Order XIV, Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, read with Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been moved by the applicant/plaintiff, for grant of an-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men, servants, agents, assigns or anyone claiming through or under them from dealing with the applicant's trademark ARAMUSK.
1. The applicant/plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction restraining respondents from dealing and transacting their business under the trademark "ARAMUSK" or any other associated marks, which are owned by the applicant/plaintiff exclusively.
2. The pleaded case of the applicant/plaintiff is that, the trademark "ARAMUSK" is the property of M/s. Shaw Wallace and Company Limited, which stood amalgamated with the applicant/plaintiff with all its assets and liabilities. The applicant/plaintiff; thus, is the registered owner of trademark "ARAMUSK", and that the defendants have no right or interest, to use the said trademark.
3. That M/s. Shaw Wallace & Company Ltd had entered into agreement on 22.01.1999, with M/s. Henkel Spic India Ltd., before its amalgamation with the applicant/plaintiff. The preamble of the agreement executed between M/s. Shaw Wallace & Company Ltd and M/s. Henkel Spic India Ltd. reads as follows:
WHEREAS
(i) The Seller has for many years been engaged in the Business of Consumer Products (BCP") and has acquired a good reputation therein;
(ii) The Seller has engaged in the BCP through the Consumer Products Division ("CPD") of the Seller and through the Calcutta Chemical Company Limited, an existing public limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act 1956, and having its Registered Officer at 28, S. Roy Road, Calcutta 700039 and Detergents India Ltd, an existing public limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, and having its Registered Office at Industrial Development Area, Kodur-516 101, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh. The Seller indirectly holds shares in the aforesaid two public limited companies through it
