Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
Iftikhar Alam – Appellant
Versus
M/s M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. and Another – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 77 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 41 Rules 23, 23-A, 24, 25 – Order 43 Rule 1 (r) – Trademarks Act, 1999 – Sections 34, 29, 134, 135 – Copyrights Act, 1956 – Section 62 – Challenging order – Original Suit – Temporary injunction – Appeal orders – Saving for vested rights – Infringement of registered trademarks – Suit for infringement – Held, Court finds it proper to remand case to trial court for fresh consideration, defendant appellant be restrained from using product as injuncted by trial court during period in which trial court would reconsider and re-decide injunction application – Court is not in a position to accept such submission for simple reason that once appeal is being allowed setting aside injunction order, a contrary order granting injunction on same lines cannot be passed, irrespective of fact that order impugned was passed 9 months ago – It is well settled that long pendency of any case would not hamper rights of parties who were litigating in all bona fides and, in present case, Court find from perusal of order sheet that matter was being diligently prosecuted by both parties and huge and bulky affidavits were exchanged in between them – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 10.10.2022 whereby the District Judge, Varanasi has allowed Application 6-C filed by the plaintiff-respondents in Original Suit No. 20 of 2022 granting a temporary injunction pending suit restraining the defendant-appellant from producing, selling or conducting any business in relation to tooth powder, namely, Musa Ka Gul which was alleged as a registered trademark of the plaintiff-respondents. Other injunction was also sought on the same lines.
2. The aforesaid suit was filed by M/s M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd through its Director Mohd. Nazish as plaintiff no. 1 and Mohd. Nazish in his personal capacity, as plaintiff no. 2, against the defendant-appellant Iftikar Alam under Sections 29, 134, 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of the Copyrights Act, 1956 with the averments that the plaintiff no. 1 is a private limited company well established in India and is engaged in the production and sale of tooth power, namely, Musa Ka Gul by wholesale and retail activity. It was further alleged that the plaintiff no. 1 company and its predecessors had been selling the said product in accordance with law since 04.03.1974 and that copyright office at New Delhi had issued registered No. A0131294/2010 on 04.10.2019, Lebel and Registered No. 140586/2021 dated 21.11.2021, Musa Gul and Registered No. 140586/2021 dated 21.11.2021 and GST No. 19AAHCM7286L1ZN. It was further alleged that the plaintiff no. 1 company was registered on 16.12.2011 and its trademark was registered on 15.01.1994 as Registration No. 616611, Certificate No. 733679, which is valid upto 15.01.2024. In paragraph no. 14 of the plaint, it was pleaded as follows:
3. The cause of action for filing the suit was alleged to have accrued on 16.08.2022 when the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant was selling the same product by the same name and, therefore, suit was instituted claiming a decree on the same lines on which the temporary injunction was claimed as aforesaid.
4. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff-respondents also claimed temporary injunction and affidavits were exchanged in the injunction matter. The defendant-appellant filed objections against the injunction application and apart from other documents, also filed following documents along with the list 42-C.
| Øe la[;k | fooj.k nLrkost crkjh[k | vxj fefly esa 'kkfey fd;k x;k rks Án'kZ | vxj ukeatwj gqvk rks rkjh[k ;k okilh nLr[kr Qj+hd | okn ds lhy dkxt esa cUn djus dh rkjh[k | dSfQ;r | ||
| uke vnkyr | uEcj eqdnek | uke QjhdSu,oa cuke | |||||
| 1. | Examination Report with Reply Application No. 3475920 | 4 Work | Page No. 14 | 43 x@4 |
|
|
|
| 2. | Examination Report Application No. 616611 with Reply | 3 Work | Page No. 5-7 | 44 x@3 | |||
| 3. | Rectification Application for Application No. 616611 | 22 Work | Page No. 8-29 | 45 x@22 | |||
| 4. | Declaration Certificate 1.4.1983 and assignment certificate | 5 Work | Page No. 29-33 | 46 x@5 | |||
| 5. | Trade Ma | ||||||
The court emphasized the necessity of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury for granting injunctions in trademark disputes.
The findings recorded in the order granting or refusing injunction are to be looked into only in connection with the three basic ingredients, i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irrepa....
The court emphasized the importance of disclosing material facts and prior use of trademarks in obtaining injunction orders.
Prior user rights are paramount in trademark disputes and override mere registration claims, necessitating robust evidence to support any injunction requests.
The failure to renew a trademark registration leads to abandonment, allowing subsequent users to claim rights.
In passing-off cases, the burden of proof for establishing prior user lies with the plaintiff, and failure to provide substantial evidence undermines claims for injunction.
An interim injunction requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable injury, which were not established by the plaintiff.
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
