2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 11261

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Ravi V Hosmani, J
Jallan Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Sarathi International Inc. – Respondent
MFA No. 5183 of 2025 | MFA No. 5220 of 2025

The prominent use of a term on product packaging serves as a source identifier rather than a descriptive feature. When such use creates a likelihood of consumer confusion or deception against a registered trademark, it constitutes infringement that warrants an interim injunction regardless of claims of bonafide description.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 27, 28, 29, 30 and 35 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Trademark infringement and passing off - Temporary injunction - Registered proprietor of trademark seeking to restrain unauthorized use of mark - Principles governing grant of interim relief include prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm - Statutory protection for descriptive use under Section 30 is subject to the mark not being used in a manner that functions as a source identifier - Prominent use of a word resembling a registered trademark on product packaging can lead to confusion and negate the defence of bonafide descriptive use. (Paras 7, 34, 36, 61)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope of interference - Appellate court should not substitute its own view for that of the court below unless the impugned order is arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or ignores settled legal principles - An order should not be interfered with merely because another view is possible. (Paras 28, 68)

Facts of the case:
The appellant (defendant) challenged an order granting a temporary injunction in favor of the respondent (plaintiff) in a suit for infringement and passing off of a registered trademark. The plaintiff, a long-term manufacturer of incense sticks, asserted exclusive rights over its mark and alleged that the defendant’s use of a phonetically identical term on its packaging caused consumer confusion. The defendant contended that its use was bonafide and purely descriptive of the product's fragrance, protected under statutory provisions regarding descriptive use of common terms.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case through longstanding registration and continuous use of the mark. It observed that the defendant used the term in a font size more prominent than its own house mark, indicating its use as a brand identifier rather than a mere descriptor of the product's fragrance. Consequently, the claim of descriptive use was rejected at the interlocutory stage.

Issues: 1. Whether the defendant’s use of the impugned term constituted protected descriptive use or trademark infringement. 2. Whether the trial court’s exercise of discretion in granting a temporary injunction was perverse or contrary to law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a word is used prominently on packaging, it functions as a source identifier, thereby losing its protective character as a descriptive term. The balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable harm to the registered proprietor justify granting an interim injunction in cases of phonetic similarity and likely consumer confusion.

Result: Appeals dismissed.