Point of Law :
when an ex parte ad interim injunction is granted, the Court which is seized of the main case, should make endeavour to dispose of the Notice of Motion on merits in the light of the mandate contained in Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC which provides that the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the Application within 30 days from the date on which the ex parte injunction was granted

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

Heard Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M. Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the appellant in these Appeals and Sri Sunil B. Ganu, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. These Appeals are preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC challenging the orders dt.12.03.2020 in I.A.Nos.401 of 2020, 402 of 2020 and 403 of 2020 in O.S.No.106 of 2020 passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

The plea of the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.106 of 2020

3. The said suit had been filed by the respondent against the appellant alleging that the respondent/plaintiff manufactures and markets alcoholic beverages including Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and sells it under certain distinctive trademarks and labels, one of which is “Officer’s Choice” since 1988; that the respondent had also launched variants of Officer’s Choice products including “Officer’s Choice Blue” and “Officer’s Choice Black” under various distinctive labels with unique trade dress; that the respondent’s products are sold throughout India and overseas under its trademark, label and trade dress under the brand Officer’s Choice and its variants and had acquired reputation and goodwill because of their excellent quality, distinctive packaging and characteristics such as taste, flavour, blending etc.; that it is the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘Officer’s Choice’ and its variants in various classes in India which are valid and subsisting; that its label ‘Officer’s Choice’ constitutes original artistic work within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the respondent is the owner of the copyright therein and had registered labels of Officer’s Choice; and the defendant/appellant, which is also a manufacturer and marketer of liquor brands and products and is doing business in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, is using the label “Manjeera Classic No.1 Whisky” and variants using the prefix “Manjeera” similar and identical to the respondent’s Officer’s Choice trademark, trade dressed labels.

4. It is contended by the respondent that the conduct of the appellant in adopting and attempting to use the impugned labels is dishonest and in bad faith and proves the appellant’s intention to ride on the goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the respondent in the trade dress and labels.

5. It is alleged that the appellant’s labels are deceptively and confusingly similar to the respondent’s Officer’s Choice trademark and labels and that they violate the statutory rights granted to the respondent apart from common law rights acquired by the respondent by virtue of long and continuous use of the same in the market.

6. According to the respondent, the label adopted by the appellant copies the red and white combination of the respondent’s label “Officer’s Choice” with an intention to cause confusion among the public in the market and the public would be deceived into thinking that the appellant’s labels and other products form part of the respondent’s multiple distinctive products available in the market.

7. It is also contended that there is infringement of trademarks of the respondent by the appellant and the appellant’s use of its Manjeera label amounts to “passing off” the appellant’s goods as those of the respondent and there is also infringement of copyright of the respondent by the appellant.

8. It is pleaded that irreparable injury is being caused to the respondent and balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent and the following reliefs be granted in the suit:

“i. A decree of permanent injunction be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, restraining the Defendant, their affiliates, subsidiaries, directors, wholesalers, distributors, partners or proprietors, as the case may be, its officers, servants and agents from launching, manufacturing, selling, exporting, importing, offering for sale, distributing, advertising, dealing in alcoholic beverages directly