1994 (4) TMI 392 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Temporary Injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Infringement of Registered Trade Mark.
3. Passing Off.
4. Applicability of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (TMM Act) vs. the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (PRB Act).
5. Balance of Convenience and Comparative Hardship.
6. Conflict between Special and General Legislation.
7. Freedom of Press.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Temporary Injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The appeal is confined to the order on I.A.No. I, dated 2-3-1984, passed by the 17th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, which granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from using the trade mark "Financial Times." The trial court found that the first respondent made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction.

2. Infringement of Registered Trade Mark:
The first respondent, Financial Times Ltd., claimed relief for the infringement of its registered trade mark "Financial Times" (No. 468937) under the TMM Act. The appellant argued that the PRB Act, being a special Act, should take precedence over the TMM Act, and therefore, the TMM Act is not applicable.

3. Passing Off:
The first respondent alleged that the appellant and the second respondent were passing off their publication as that of the first respondent by using the title "Financial Times" and adopting similar styles and colors. The trial court granted an injunction based on these allegations.

4. Applicability of the TMM Act vs. the PRB Act:
The appellant contended that the PRB Act is a special Act for the regulation of printing presses and newspapers, and thus, the TMM Act should not apply. The court noted that the PRB Act regulates the right to publish a newspaper in India and that registration under the TMM Act merely supplements this right.

5. Balance of Convenience and Comparative Hardship:
The appellant argued that the injunction caused greater hardship by stopping the publication, affecting employees and distributors. The court found that the balance of convenience and comparative hardship favored the appellant, as the first respondent's circulation in India was limited to 231 copies per day, and there was no significant deception between the two newspapers.

6. Conflict between Special and General Legislation:
The court emphasized the need for harmonious construction between the PRB Act and the TMM Act. It concluded that the PRB Act, being a special Act, should take precedence, and a trade mark registration under the TMM Act cannot independently grant the right to publish a newspaper without registration under the PRB Act.

7. Freedom of Press:
The appellant argued that the injunction infringed upon the freedom of the press guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The court agreed that the large circulation of the appellant's newspaper provided employment and that the hardship caused to the appellant was greater than that to the first respondent.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the trial court's order granting the temporary injunction, finding that the first respondent had not made out a prima facie case for such relief. The court emphasized that the PRB Act takes precedence over the TMM Act in matters of newspaper publication and that the balance of convenience and comparative hardship favored the appellant. The application for intervention by the State of Karnataka was also rejected. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.