A temporary injunction in trademark matters requires established prima facie rights, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. A common personal name does not confer exclusivity without proof of secondary meaning, and prior user by a third party defeats the claim of a registered user for interim protection.

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

CAV Judgment

Per Rajani Dubey J.

1. Heard on admission on application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC as well as appeal on merits.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the order dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned Commercial Court, Raipur (C.G.), whereby the application of the appellants/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been rejected. (The parties herein shall be referred as per their nomenclature before the learned Trial Court).

3. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the plaintiffs, are that the plaintiffs filed the suit under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 before the learned Commercial Court. As per plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.1 firm in 2016 had honestly, legitimately, independently and bonafidely conceived and adopted the mark "NEERAJ", inter alia, for using the same in relation to the goods falling under clause 14. The appellant No.01 is a proprietorship firm namely Neeraj Jewellery represented through its proprietor and appellant No.02 is the registered owner of the trademark NEERAJ and is brother of proprietor firm Neeraj Jewellery namely Neeraj Gupta. As per the plaintiffs, the plaintiff firm is a market leader in marketing the aforesaid goods and services and has a broad business presence in India. The plaintiffs' registered mark is eligible to be classified as a "well-known" trademark under Section 2(1) (gz) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 . The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants are dishonestly using identical and deceptively similar mark like his trademark while selling the jewellery. The adoption of impugned trademark by the defendants is done deliberately, malafidely, fraudulently and with ulterior motives to imitate/trade upon the plaintiffs' goodwill and reputation, upon the plaintiffs objected and even sent notice to the defendants, but they continued to do the same. Ultimately civil suit was filed before the learned Trial Court, which is pending consideration, in which the plaintiffs also filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC for temporary injunction but the same has been rejected vide impugned order. Hence the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the the impugned order dated 10/09/2025 passed by the Learned Commercial Court is erroneous and contrary to facts and circumstances of the case. The Learned Commercial Court has not appreciated as the prima facie case of the appellants shows that the trade mark of the appellants is used by the respondents because of which the balance of convenience is in the favour of the appellants also the appellants have suffered irreparable loss due to the actions of the respondents. The learned Commercial Court wrongfully placed over reliance upon section 21 (g) (2) and section 35 of the Act 1999 for denying the relief to the appellants. The said provisions curtails the right of registered trademark user only to the extent of usage by predecessor in business of other persons bonafidely. In this case the registered trademark of ‘NEERAJ’ in name of plaintiffs is sufficient to establish exclusive rights to use the trade name by the plaintiffs and it is the burden of the defendants to establish by evidence that their predecessors in business used the said trade mark or similar name. He further submits that Section 28 confers exclusive rights to use the registered trademark in relation to goods and service by the plaintiffs in the name of NEERAJ and goods and services which a