JUDGMENT (ORAL)

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

The lis

1. CS (Comm) 920/2022, ("the suit" hereinafter) stands instituted by the respondent Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research against the appellant Bodhisatva Charitable Trust and other defendants. The respondent alleged, in the suit, infringement, by the appellants, of the registered trademarks of the respondent, as well as passing off, by the appellants, of the services provided by them, as services of the respondent.

2. The suit was accompanied by IA 22385/2022, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, praying for interim injunction, pending disposal of the suit, against the appellants, restraining them from using the marks MAYO, MAYO INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, MAYO MEDICAL CENTRE, MAYO MEDICAL CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, MAYO HOSPITAL, MAYO CLINIC, MAYO SCHOOL OF NURSING, MAYO PHARMACY and MAYO GASTRO- LIVER CLINIC.

3. A learned single Judge of this Court has, by judgment dated 29 May 2023, allowed IA 22385/2022 and has restrained the appellants in the terms sought by the respondent.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have instituted the present appeal.

5. We have heard Mr. Jayant Sud, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Raunaq Kamath, learned Counsel for the respondent, at length.

Facts

6. The Plaint

6.1 The Respondent asserted, in its plaint, that it was a leading internationally known Medical Centre which provided medical care through a diverse physician-led team and that the persons involved with the respondent offered clinical, educational, diagnostic and research services in a unified multi-campus system. The primary base of the respondent was in the US where, according to US News and World Report, the respondent had been named the “# 1 hospital nationwide”. Owing to regular publication and citation in Indian newspapers, magazines and online publications, it was asserted that the respondent had received widespread exposure and acceptance in the field of health and medicine in India. It was further asserted that, on the respondent’s website www.mayoclinic.org, there had been over 33 crore sessions by Indian users, and on its website www.mayo.edu, there had been over 10 lakh sessions to Indian users between 2014 and 2022.

6.2 The following marks, among others, stand registered in favour of the respondent under the Trade Marks Act, 1999:

6.3 It was further contended, in the plaint, that MAYO was also the respondent’s house mark and constituted an essential and dominant part of its trading style, which included its domain names www.mayoclinic.org, www.mayo.edu and www.mayoclinic.com.

6.4 Appellant 1 Bodhisatva Charitable Trust is a non-government trust. Appellant 2 operates a multi-spe