2003 (1) TMI 525 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against an order granting an interim injunction.
2. Dispute over trademark infringement and passing off.
3. Contention regarding prior use of trademark and registration.
4. Application of legal principles for granting interlocutory injunction.
5. Compliance with procedural requirements for granting injunction.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order granting an interim injunction in a case involving a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off. The respondent sought relief of permanent injunction, account of profits, and direction to prevent the defendant from using a deceptively similar mark. The Additional District Judge granted an ex parte injunction in favor of the respondent, leading to the appeal by the defendant.

2. The respondent claimed to be the prior user of the trademark, while the appellant contended that the respondent was deceptively copying a registered trademark. The court noted conflicting claims regarding the commencement of business and pending trademark registrations. The judgment emphasized the need for a trial court to decide on the merits of the claims without providing findings on the conflicting assertions.

3. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the judgment highlighted the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions to preserve the status quo pending trial. It was noted that the respondent had already commenced business with the disputed trademark when the suit was filed, contrary to the principle of granting injunctions at a stage where the defendant had not yet begun the enterprise.

4. The judgment pointed out a procedural flaw in the lower court's order by not recording reasons for dispensing with prior notice to the appellant and granting an ex parte injunction. The court emphasized the mandatory requirement to justify granting an injunction without notice, which was absent in the impugned order. The lack of compliance with procedural rules led to the setting aside of the injunction order.

5. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the injunction order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to decide the application expeditiously without considering any previous observations. Both parties were granted an opportunity to contest the application on merits, with the appellant required to file a counter within a specified timeline. The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in granting injunctions.