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

2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 31699

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
SUDESH BANSAL
JYOTI TRIPATHI OWNER/ PUBLISHER/ PRINTER – Appellant
Versus
M/S RAJASTHAN PATRIKA PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
CMA / 2986 / 2023



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2986/2023 Jyoti Tripathi Owner/ Publisher/ Printer, M/s Tripathi Printers, Purani Nagar, Palika Ki Gali, Main Market Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus M/s Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, JLN Marg, Kesargarh Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory Raghunath Singh ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak, Mr. Sameer Sharma, Mr. Aditya Bohra, Ms. Ishita Rawat, Mr. Kanishk Singhal, Ms. Priyanshi Roongta For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. G.D. Bansal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

26/09/2024

1. Instant Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 CPC, has been filed by the appellant-defendant, assailing the order of temporary injunction dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan- I, Jaipur, while allowing the application for temporary injunction bearing No.40/2021 filed by respondent-plaintiff whereby and whereunder the appellant-defendant has been restrained for not printing, publishing, distributing and selling of newspaper in the name of "Jhalawar Patrika" or in the name of "Rajasthan Patrika"

or in a similar name.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant- defendant runs a business of publishing, printing, distributing and selling its newspaper in the name of "Jhalawar Patrika", which is confined only in District Jhalawar, Rajasthan, whereas the newspaper of respondent-plaintiff publishes in the trade name "Rajasthan Patrika" in whole Rajasthan and other States as well. Learned counsel submits that the registered trademark of respondent-plaintiff is for the trade name "Rajasthan Patrika" and not for "Jhalawar Patrika" and they distribute and sell daily newspaper in the Trade name of "Rajasthan Patrika" only.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the application for registration of trade name "Jhalawar Patrika" of the appellant-defendant was pending since 05.12.2022 before the Registrar of Trademarks and in the reply to the application for temporary injunction, appellant-defendant had disclosed about pendency of his application for registration. Now pursuant to the pending application for registration bearing No.5709647 dated 05.12.2022, trademark of appellant-defendant in the name of "Jhalawar Patrika" has been registered on 27.02.2024 in respect of publication and editing of newspapers, online publication of electronic newspapers, multimedia publishing of newspapers in Class 41. The copy of registration certificate dated 27.02.2024 has been shown to the Court with an advance copy to the counsel for respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent does not distribute and sell its newspaper in the name of "Jhalawar Patrika" but his newspaper is published and distributed in District Jhalawar also in the name of "Rajasthan Patrika" only; although in such newspaper only four pages are attached inside under the heading and title of "Jhalawar Patrika" which is in fact a part of the main newspaper "Rajasthan Patrika" and respondent does not sell any independent and separate newspaper in the trade name of "Jhalawar Patrika". However, without pondering over all such glaring facts, the trial Court has restrained the appellant by temporary injunction order not to distribute and sell his newspaper in the name of "Jhalawar Patrika". He submits that the injunction order dated 29.09.2023 is ex facie illegal, perverse as much as contrary to the established principles of law to pass injunction orders in the dispute of IPR Matters, therefore, impugned order of injunction is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent- plaintiff with the assistance of counsel Mr. G.D. Bansal, has not disputed the issuance of registration certificate in favour of defendant in the trade name of "Jhalawar Patrika" but their contention

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