Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Judge, J
Nakshatra Gold and Diamonds v. Nakshatra Gold and Diamond LLP
O.S.No.13 of 2024
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case concerns a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off, involving the trademarks "Nakshatra Gold and Diamonds" used by the plaintiff and similar marks used by the defendant, including a new showroom at Lulu Mall, Kozhikode [para 1-3].
The plaintiff had extensively used the trademark since 2015, building reputation and goodwill, and had previously filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction, which is pending [para 3].
The defendants created a mark visually and phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s, and also filed a rectification application to cancel the plaintiff’s trademark registration, indicating an intent to use similar marks for their business [para 3].
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction, but the trial court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case, nor the likelihood of irreparable injury, and that the balance of convenience favored the defendants [para 11].
The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing that the order was based on a preliminary, prima facie assessment of the facts, and that a detailed analysis of the merits would follow during the trial [para 7-10].
The court reiterated the principles governing interim injunctions, stating that the applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case, potential irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favors granting relief [para 8].
The court noted that the trial court had correctly observed that the defendants’ marks were not deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s marks, and that the plaintiff’s own defense regarding the distinctiveness of its font and representation supported the trial court’s findings [para 6, 10].
The appellate court clarified that its role was limited to assessing whether the trial court correctly applied the principles for granting an interim injunction, and it did not re-evaluate the entire case or the factual findings in detail [para 7, 11].
The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or irreparable injury, and that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, thus justifying the dismissal of the appeal and the interim injunction application [para 11].
Overall, the decision underscores the importance of a preliminary, cautious approach in granting interim relief, emphasizing that the full merits of the case will be examined during the trial.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding trademark infringement and trademark identity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments concerning the merits of granting an injunction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on the injunction criteria and trademark assessment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. conclusion on the merits of the injunction request. (Para 11) |
1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 18.02.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.13 of 2024 of the Additional District Court, Kozhikode. Appellant was the petitioner in the I.A. and plaintiff in the suit. Respondents herein were the respondents in the I.A. and defendants in the suit. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the suit.
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff under under S.134 (1) and (2) and S.135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their partners, successors, servants, agents, dealers, distributors and all other persons claiming through them from in any manner infringing with the registered trademark dated 04.01.2019, said to be subsisting in favour of the plaintiff. Along with the suit, an interlocutory application bearing I.A.No.2 of 2024 was filed by the plaintiff invoking O.39 R.1 and R.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark, "NAKSHATRA, GOLD AND DIAMONDS", or any mark visually or phonetically similar to that of the plaintiff's mark, till the disposal of the suit. The said I.A. was dismissed by the District Court. This FAO is filed challenging the said order of dismissal.
3. Before proceeding to consider the contentions of the parties, it may be relevant to refer to the facts as put forth by the plaintiff in brief: The plaintiff had commenced his business in the year 2015 using the relevant trademark, without any objection from third parties till date. After the adoption of the relevant trademark, the plaintiff had extensively and continuously used the same and had earned high reputation and immense goodwill. By the continuous and extensive use of the said trademark, it has now been widely recognized by the public as being associated with the plaintiff. Plaintiff has been using the relevant trademark for its outlets at Aluva, Perumbavoor, Thoppumpady and M.G.Road, Ernakulam and had expended substantial amounts towards advertisement and promotional expenses during the period 2018-19 to 2023-24. The turnover of the plaintiff through these said outlets during the financial years 2015-16 to 2023-24 has been substantial. Enticed by the grand success of the plaintiff and its trademark, in the year 2019, one Sri. Shanavas T. M. started trading as 'Nakshatra Jewellers' by creating different entities and using a trademark which is visually and phonetically identical to the trademark of the plaintiff, that had some malayalam fonts to present the words 'Nakshatra' and carried the words Gold and Diamonds in English. Except for a minor mention regarding the certification '916' the same was visually and phonetically identical to the trademark of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this illegal act, the plaintiff had moved the District Court, Ernakulam, by filing O.S.No.35 of 2019 seeking permanent prohibitory injunction alleging acts of infringement of registered trademark of the plaintiff and passing off. The said suit is now pending consideration before the 2nd Additional District Court, Ernakulam and defendant No.2 in the said suit is Sri. Shanavas T.M., who is the designated partner of the defendant firms. After the filing of O.S.No.35 of 2019 and while it was posted for exploring the possibility of a settlement, the defendants with oblique motives filed a rectification application before the Registrar of Trademarks seeking to rectify / cancel the registration granted to the plaintiff for the mark "NAKSHATRA GOLD AND DIAMONDS". Thereafter, defendant No.1, LLP has been hastily constituted with a plan to open a sh
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
