1977 (4) TMI 177 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Proprietary interest in the trade mark "RAJARANI".
2. Establishment of a prima facie case for interim injunction.
3. Balance of convenience between the parties.
4. Irreparable injury to the appellant.

Summary:

Proprietary Interest in the Trade Mark "RAJARANI":
The appellant claimed proprietary interest in the trade mark "RAJARANI" based on user, while the respondents contested this on the grounds that the mark belonged to respondent No. 3, was common to the trade, and had prior registrations. The learned Single Judge concluded that neither party could claim proprietary interest due to earlier registrations and the trade mark registry's view that no proprietary interest could be given in the words "RAJARANI" or "King and Queen".

Establishment of a Prima Facie Case for Interim Injunction:
The prima facie case in favor of the appellant was established by admitted user of the mark on voiles produced and marketed by it. However, this was weakened by the mark being common to the trade and various registrations. The court emphasized that in a passing off action, registration of the trade mark is immaterial (u/s 27 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958). The appellant had to establish user of the mark prior to the respondents' use, and mere presence of the mark in the trade mark registry did not prove its user.

Balance of Convenience Between the Parties:
The balance of convenience was in favor of the appellant, who was the first user of the mark. The court noted that there was no evidence of actual user of the mark by any party other than the parties before it. The appellant's right to property in the trade mark should be protected, and the balance of convenience favored the appellant.

Irreparable Injury to the Appellant:
The irreparable injury would be the likely confusion caused if respondents were allowed to use the mark. If the respondents continued to market their goods with the offending mark, it might lead to long user and the ultimate relief of permanent injunction might be refused on the plea of common or concurrent user. The likelihood of confusion and the potential for a plea of common or concurrent user constituted irreparable injury to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The appeal was accepted, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was reversed, and an interim injunction was issued against the respondents restraining them from using the trade mark "RAJARANI" on any voiles they may manufacture, market, or process. The injunction was restricted to voiles only, as claimed by the appellant. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.