Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 51469
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
VINEETHA SURESH BABU – Appellant
Versus
DR. ROSE MARY WILSON – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 2202 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Radhakrishnan Nair, Sajen Thampan, Jinu Samyuktha Padmakumar, Athil Jamal, Ayoona P. M., Faithfinny K.S., Sarika Krishna A.
For the Respondents: Tom Mathew, Deepu Anil, Kiran Mathew, Karthika Sudheer N., Niya Shanto, Pravitha T.
Courts must prioritize the expeditious disposal of applications to vacate ad interim injunctions in trademark infringement suits to prevent undue prejudice to the defendants.
Headnote:(A) Trademark Infringement - Ad Interim Injunction - Expeditious Disposal - In cases where an infringement of a trademark is alleged and an ad interim injunction has been granted, the court is duty-bound to resolve the issue of vacating the interim order at the earliest to prevent serious prejudice to the aggrieved parties. (Para 3)
Issues: Whether the lower court should be directed to dispose of the application for vacating an ad interim injunction in a trademark suit expeditiously.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the trademark suit and the request for expedited disposal of the interim application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the necessity of speedy resolution in trademark injunction cases to avoid prejudice. (Para 3) |
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN IA 1/2026 IN CS NO.1 OF 2026 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR / II ADDITIONAL MACT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EASWARAN S.,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OP (C) No.2202 of 2026
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2026
JUDGMENT
1. This Original Petition (Civil) has been filed by the defendants in C.S.No.01/2026, which is a suit for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from using a particular trademark. Along with the suit, I.A.No.01/2026 has been filed by the plaintiffs, in which there is an ad interim injunction granted against the defendants, which is causing serious prejudice to them. The petitioners/ defendants have appeared and filed their objection. It is pointed out that the interlocutory application was finally heard, taken up for orders and thereafter, reposted. Therefore, it is prayed that the directions be issued to the Additional District & Sessions Court -III, Thrissur to consider the same as expeditiously as possible.
2. In view of the limited relief, this Court has called for a report from the III Additional District Court, Thrissur. The learned District Judge has forwarded a report dated 04.08.2026, in which it is stated that she requires three months time for disposing of I.A.No.01/2026.
3. On a conspectus reading of the report as well as the urgency exhibited by the petitioners, this Court finds that three months time as sought for by the court cannot be granted. In a case where an infringement of a trademark is alleged and ad interim injunction being obtained, it is the duty of the court to have to resolve the issue at the earliest, especially when the aggrieved parties have come up for vacating the interim order. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the time as sought for cannot be granted.
In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the III Additional District Court, Thrissur is directed to consider and dispose of I.A.No.01/2026, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before the closure of the courts for Onam vacation. If as a matter of fact, the court does not find time for taking up those matters, it is for the III Additional District Court, Thrissur to appraise the same before the Principal District Court, Thrissur regarding the workload, who then shall take into consideration of assigning the appeal to be made over to any other courts having lesser workload. In that event also the directions in this judgment will apply.
