SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 439362

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K S HEMALEKHA
MR. CARMAN L KOBZA – Appellant
Versus
MIPA INFOTECH SOLUTLIONS PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
MFA 5081/2021



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5081 OF 2021 (IPR)

BETWEEN:

MR. CARMAN L. KOBZA

S/O MR. HARLAN KOBZA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

RESIDING AT 1119 FM 2228,

SCHULENBURG, TEXAS-78956 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

TEMPORARY ADDRESS:

BREND’AMOUSTRASSE 2A

DUSSELDORF 40545

GERMANY.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MIPA INFOTECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

Digitally signed by

A COMPANY INCORPORATED

MAHALAKSHMI B M

Location: HIGH UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956

COURT OF HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

KARNATAKA

T-05, HARMONY HOME APARTMENTS,

NO.4/2, HENNUR MAIN ROAD,

HRBR 3RD BLOCK, KACHARKANAHLLI,

BENGALURU-560043.

2. MRS. BRIDGET AUXILLA RAJU

W/O MR. VINOD PIUS RAJU,

AGED MAJOR,

RESIDING AT T-05,

HARMONY HOME APARTMENTS,

NO.4/2, HENNUR MAIN ROAD,

HRBR 3RD BLOCK, KACHARANAHALLI,

BENGALURU-560043.

3. MR. VINOD PIUS RAJU AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT T-05, HARMONY HOME APARTMENTS, NO.4/2, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, HRBR 3RD BLOCK, KACHARAKNAHALLI, BENGALURU-560043.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R. MADHUSUDHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.04.2021 PASSED ON I.A. NOS.1 TO 3 IN O.S.NO.9490/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BEGNALURU CITY (CCH.NO.10), DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 TO 3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant-plaintiff has filed the present miscellaneous first appeal calling in question the Order dated 17.04.2021, passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (‘trial Court’ for short) in O.S.No.9490/2019, whereby I.A.Nos.1 to 3 filed seeking temporary injunction in respect of the website www.myclininare.com, logo “MyCliniCare” and allied promotional material came to be rejected.

Brief facts:

2. The suit is instituted by the plaintiff claiming rights over the brand name by “MyCliniCare”, its logo, tag- line “Health to you”, website and promotional material, contending that the same were created by him and the defendants were misusing the said intellectual property after severance of business relationship. Pending the suit, the applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC were filed seeking temporary injunction.

3. The trial Court, upon considering the pleadings and documents declined to grant temporary injunction holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, consequently rejected I.A.Nos.1 to 3 by order dated 17.04.2021. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the material on record relating to authorship and ownership of the logo, website and creative content. It is submitted that refusal of grant of injunction has resulted in continued use of the disputed intellectual property by the defendants. The order of the trial Court is erroneous and calls for interference.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the appeal is misconceived and has remained pending since 2021, without any interim protection. The brand name, logo, domain name and trademark exists much prior to the plaintiff's association and the trial Court has rightly exercised discretion in refusing injunction and no case has been made out by the petitioner for any interference.

7. It is submitted that the dispute involves mix questions of fact and law which only can be adjudicated by a full-fledged trial.

8. Having regard to the submissions made, the undisputed facts are that:

(1) The appeal has been pending since 2021.

(2) No interim order of injunction has been granted by this Cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top