In trademark infringement actions, a presumption of confusion arises if the defendant's mark is identical to that of the registered trademark, fostering the entitlement to interim injunction.

S.MANU, J.

------------------------------------------

FAO No.118 of 2025 -------------------------------------------

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2025

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff in O.S.No.2 of 2025 of the Additional District Court, Manjeri, has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2025. By the impugned order, I.A.No.2 of 2025 filed by the appellant / plaintiff for interim injunction was dismissed with costs.

2. Appellant is the proprietor of M/s.Global Pharmaceuticals.

Appellant has obtained trade mark registration for the trade name and mark 'BOKASHI BUCKET'. The design applied to the 'BOKASHI BUCKET' Compost Bin is registered in the name of the appellant under the Designs Act, 2000. The product of the appellant can convert biodegradable solid waste to excellent manure within 15 days. It is an innovative waste management solution. Appellant claims that the product has gained popularity in the market and it is scientifically designed. Suchitwa Mission and Local Self Government Authorities have purchased the 'BOKASHI BUCKET' of the appellant in large quantities. It is being sold on online platforms also. Appellant claims to have significant turn over with the sale of 'BOKASHI BUCKET'. According to the appellant the design registered in the name of the appellant is a novel and original one. Further the appellant claims that on account of long, exclusive and extensive use coupled with voluminous sales, promotional activities and presence, the product has earned very high reputation in the market.

3. According to the appellant, it’s distributors in Kerala detected an identical product being sold by the respondent which mimics the style of the product of the appellant. Respondent has deliberately copied and reproduced a replica of the overall design, shape, configuration, get up and even features of the 'BOKASHI BUCKET' Compost Bin. The respondent is passing off his product as that of the 'BOKASHI BUCKET' Compost Bin of the appellant. The respondent is unauthorizedly using the trade mark of the appellant thereby infringing the registered trade mark of 'BOKASHI BUCKET' of the appellant. Hence the suit was filed.

4. I.A.No.2 of 2025 for temporary injunction was filed along with the suit. The District Court has passed an order of ad-interim injunction against the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent entered appearance and filed a written statement as also objection in the I.A. The respondent contended that there was no novelty in the design of the appellant. It was also contended that the registration of trade mark was obtained by concealing material facts and through misrepresentation. Respondent has already filed rectification petition to cancel the registration of the appellant. Further the appellant approached the Court suppressing material facts. Though no patent registration is obtained by the appellant, he claimed in the suit to have patent registration also. The respondent was using the brand name 'MARIA' in the 'BOKASHI BUCKET' sold by him. 'BOKASHI BUCKET' is a common descriptive word used in the market since 2013. Respondent is a bonafide prior user who has been manufacturing and selling 'MARIA BOKASHI BUCKET' from 2013 onwards. Respondent also contended that the trade mark registration of the appellant is generic and consists of descriptive words in public domain. The registration is now subject to the decision in the rectification application filed by the respondent. The design of the appellant has no specialty or distinctiveness. The design is openly available