Judicial decisions must provide adequate reasoning; lack of reasoning renders an order unintelligible and affects the potential for meaningful appellate review.

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY)

1. The facts of the case are as under:-

1.1 The Plaintiff, Narmada Agrobase Limited, the Respondent herein is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of cattle feed and related products under various trademarks adopting the term “NARMADA” since 2013, including the mark “Gay Chhap Narmada Pashu Aahar,” which is registered under Class 31. The Plaintiff contended that it has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the relevant trade channels and that the Appellant-Defendant’s use of similar marks causes confusion and dilutes its brand identity. It was further alleged that the Defendant’s packaging, marketing material, and product get-up closely resemble that of the Plaintiff, leading to instances of mistaken identity in the market.

1.2 According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant began using the impugned marks in early 2023, prompting the issuance of a legal notice dated 16.01.2023. It is also stated that a trader mistakenly purchased the Defendant’s product believing it to be of the Plaintiff’s, reinforcing the allegation of deceptive similarity.

1.3 The Defendant/Appellant, having been served with the summons, filed a Written Statement and reply to the interim injunction application, contesting the claim. The Defendant contended that it has been using the mark “New Narbada” in Rajasthan since 2022 and is independently known in the local market. It is contended that the terms “Narmada” and “Narbada” are visually and phonetically distinct and that the cow device used is also materially different from that of the Plaintiff’s trademark. The appellant argued that its mark is not deceptively similar and is not likely to cause confusion or mislead consumers.

1.4 It was further asserted that the Plaintiff’s rights in the word “Narmada” are not exclusive as per the conditions in the trademark registration, and several trademark applications filed by the Plaintiff are either opposed or pending. The Defendant has also applied for registration of the mark “New Narbada,” which is under objection by a third party not involved in the present suit.

1.5 The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) passed an order dated 29.03.2025 in Exh.7 upon the Plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (CPC), by which the Defendant has been restrained in conducting its business activities by using the trademark “New Narbada & New Narbada Gold with device of cow”.

1.6 The Appellant contends that the impugned order is erroneous in law and fact, fails to properly appreciate the Defendant’s distinctiveness, and causes irreparable harm to its business operations. The appellant has, accordingly, challenged the said order in appeal with the following prayers:-

“(A) To admit / allow the present Appeal from Order;

(B) To quash and set aside the order dated 29/03/2025 passed by the before learned Additional District & Session Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Dholka in Trade mark Civil Suit no. 01 of 2023;

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal From Order, to stay execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 29/03/2025 passed by the before learned Additional District & Session Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Dholka in Trade mark Civil Suit no. 01 of 2023;

(D) Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph may be granted;

(E) To grant such other and further reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Mr. Aditya R.Gundecha, learned advocate appearing for the Appellant, apart from contending that the trademark is not deceptively similar, has also contended that the i