Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 483
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Skol Breweries Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd. – Respondent
M.A. No.2745 of 2018
Decided On : 14-11-2018
For the Appellant : Shri. Ravish Chandra Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Sanklap Kochar, learned counsel.
For the Respondent: Shri. Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rahul Diwaker, learned counsel
The Court emphasized the importance of demonstrating a prima facie case for granting temporary injunction and directed the Trial Court to decide the suit finally within a specified period.
Headnote:
CPC - Temporary Injunction - Companies Act, 1956 - Designs Act, 2000 - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, sought a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered design bottle under the Designs Act, 2000 and passing off its goods under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was rejected by the Trial Court, leading to the instant appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that it did not find substance in the appeal and declined to grant temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff. However, the Trial Court was directed to decide the suit finally within two months.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a temporary injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered design bottle and passing off its goods.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the evidence, including the history of the case, and found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie case for granting temporary injunction. The Court also emphasized the need for the Trial Court to decide the suit finally within a specified period.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to decide the suit finally within two months.
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity “CPC”), whose application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC for issuance of temporary injunction has been rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.02.2018 (Annexure-A-13) passed in RCS No.A/1900079/2016.
2. Certain important facts for deciding this appeal, need to be considered are that the plaintiff/appellant which is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity ‘Act, 1956’) having its registered office as mentioned in paragraph-1 of the plaint. The plaintiff is involved in the business of brewing market and sale of beer, non-alcoholic beverages and mineral water. The plaintiff manufactures and sells the beer in the name of “HAYWARDS 5000” whereas name of the defendant’s beer is “BLACK FORT”. The plaintiff has a registered design bottle of their beer under Section 9(1) of the Designs Act, 2000 (for brevity ‘Act, 2000’) having registration No.223479. The beer which is manufactured by the defendant is filled in their own bottles and apart from it they also purchase empty bottles from the junk market and after recycling the bottles, use as its own product i.e. “BLACK FORT” and is sold in the market. As such, the defendant also sells its own product in the bottles of the plaintiff which got registered under the Act, 2000 by the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff has made allegation that the defendant has no right to use such bottle and its action is alleged to be illegal. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant is using bottles of the plaintiff’s design with a mala fide intention to get the benefit of reputation as owned by the plaintiff in the market and to increase its sale and to confuse the customers who would purchase the beer bottles of the defendant under the impression that it is a product of plaintiff i.e. a beer in the name and style of “HAYWARDS 5000”. As per the plaintiff, it got registered the design of its bottle under the Act, 2000 and manufacturing of per bottle cost is almost Rs.20/- and the defendant is purchasing the same from the junk market on a very meager price of Rs.1/- or 2/- and selling its product i.e. beer “BLACK FORT”. The registered design of the bottle of the plaintiff can be used by the plaintiff only for selling its product, but if it is used by the defendant, then not only the reputation of the plaintiff’s company is encashed by the defendant but the plaintiff is also suffering the loss of their image and it is also difficult for them to compete with the defendant inasmuch as, per empty bottle costs Rs.20/- . As such, the plaintiff filed a suit under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 and Section 134(1)(c), 135(1) and 135(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking decree in the following manner:-
“A. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their directors, employees, officers, servants, agent and all others acting for and on their behalf from making, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale, and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing in impugned product or any similar impugned product that infringes the subject matter of India Design No.223479 registered by the plaintiffs.
B. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their directors, employees, offices, servants, agents and all other acting for an on their behalf from making, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale, and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing in impugned product or any similar impugned product that amounts to passing off their goods and products as that of the Plaintiff under the trademarks SABMILLER and/or SABMILLER INDIA;
C. To grant order of delivery up of any of the bottles bearing the design and trade mark of the plaintiff lying in the custody of the defendants whether empty or in filled conditions and all brochures/printed material an
