Back
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Pradeep Gupta – Appellant
Versus
K. Brahmanandam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.
Since the parties to the appeals are one and the same and the issues involved in both the appeals are interconnected, both the appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Sri P.Venkatarama, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material available on record.
3. CMA.No.544 of 2023 is filed challenging the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the XII Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, in I.A.No.10 of 2023 in O.S.No.2 of 2023. The said I.A.No.10 of 2023 was filed to restrain the respondent therein from using the trade mark ‘PRITI’ in relation to the sewing machines of his manufacture and the same was allowed by the trial Court.
4. CMA.No.548 of 2023 is filed challenging the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the XII Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, in I.A.No.564 of 2020 in O.S.No.54 of 2020. The said I.A.No.564 of 2020 was filed for grant of temporary injunction against the defendant from dealing or selling sewing machine with the Trade brand word ‘PRITI’ to any person pending disposal of the suit and the same was dismissed by
The failure to renew a trademark registration leads to abandonment, allowing subsequent users to claim rights.
The prior user of a trademark has superior rights in passing off actions, regardless of subsequent registration by another party.
The court upheld the plaintiff's rights as the prior user and registered owner of the trademark, granting an injunction against the defendant's use of a similar mark due to the likelihood of consumer....
A prior user of a trade mark has superior rights in passing off actions, preventing unauthorized use by subsequent users, especially when marks are likely to confuse consumers.
The judgment underscores that trademark registration alone does not guarantee protection without actual use, and that delay in action does not preclude injunction if infringement is proven.
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.
The court found that despite phonetic similarity, the distinctiveness of trade marks and differences in intended consumer bases negate the likelihood of confusion and passing off.
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
