JUDGMENT :

In this appeal, challenge is to the order dated 08.06.2020 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, at Mahabubnagar, in I.A.No.2190 of 2019 in O.S.No.210 of 2019, dismissing the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking temporary injunction against the respondents from:

“(a) infringing the exclusive statutory right to the registered trade mark ‘Tasty Gold’;

(b) copyright of the appellant to the artistic features including the colour scheme, layout and the trade dress appearing on the label; and

(c) passing off their oils bearing the impugned trademarks ‘Tasty Drop’ & ‘Tasty Plus+’ and other aesthetic features including the colour scheme, layout and trade dress or any mark which is identical with or similar or deceptively similar to the registered trademark, ‘Tasty Gold’ as oils of the appellant’s manufacture.”

2. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the appellant is a firm dealing in edible oils under the registered trade mark styled as “TASTY GOLD”; that the predecessor of the appellant-firm had surveyed the market and only after satisfying that no other firm has the trade mark with the unique design and style as depicted in “TASTY GOLD” logo, obtained the registration vide No.3136998 dated 16.12.2016 in Class-29 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999; that the predecessor of the appellant is the originator of aesthetic features on the label as appearing in “TASTY GOLD” logo and enjoys copyright for the trade mark; that the trade mark was assigned to the appellant firm vide Deed of Assignment dated 11.10.2018 thereby the appellant became the “subsequent proprietors” of the trade mark; that the appellant firm obtained registration of the trademark full label “TASTY GOLD” vide No.4039640 in Class-29 under the Trade Marks Act; that the appellant has been spending huge money in promoting its goods which helped in their substantial turnover and also considerable goodwill and reputation of the trade mark; that to ensure quality of the edible oils, the appellant periodically sends the same for testing; that the respondent is a newcomer into the business of edible oils and located near the appellant firm; that the respondent’s application No.3999625 for registration of mark ‘TASTY DROPS’ has a mention that the same is ‘proposed to be used’ as on 16.11.2018; that the application of the respondent has been refused by the authorities; that the appellant having noticed that the respondent is using similar pouches containing the mark ‘TASTY DROPS’ amounts to infringement of the rights of the appellant under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act and the respondent has been passing off his goods as the goods of appellant firm; that the appellant issued “Cease and Desist” notice dated 15.12.2018 to the respondent, to which the respondent issued a vague reply dated 25.12.2018; that the appellant filed the suit on 11.11.2019 and an injunction order was granted against the respondent in I.A.No.2190 of 2019; that after hearing both the parties, the Court below dismissed the I.A.No.2190 of 2019 and vacated the injunction order.

3. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that it is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act dealing in manufacture, processing and marketing of edible oils under various trademarks, more specifically “TASTY DROPS” and “TASTY PLUS+”; that the contention of the appellant that the trademarks of the respondent are deceptively similar is false; that the word “TASTY” is a descriptive word and the appellant cannot claim exclusive right over the same; that the words are phonetically identical cannot be maintained as the words “Drops, Plus+ are not found in the appellant’s trade mark; that the words “Drops” and “Plus+” are completely different suffixes and are not identical to the word “Gold” suffix of the appellant; that the mark of the appellant “Tasty Gold” is a generic word having individual meaning for each word and such