2000 (5) TMI 1084 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for temporary injunction by the plaintiff.
2. Application for vacating ex parte interim injunction by the defendants.
3. Infringement of trademark.
4. Infringement of copyright.
5. Passing off.
6. Alleged misrepresentation and suppression of facts by the plaintiff.

Issue-Wise Analysis:

1. Application for Temporary Injunction by the Plaintiff:
The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC seeking a temporary injunction against the defendants for using the trademark "SURAJ CHHAP" and similar pouches or labels. The plaintiff claimed to be the registered proprietor of the label "SURAJ CHHAP" since 1973, which had been renewed and was valid. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, who previously sold tobacco under different trademarks, had recently started using "SURAJ CHHAP" and copied the design of the plaintiff's pouches, thereby infringing the plaintiff's trademark and copyright.

2. Application for Vacating Ex Parte Interim Injunction by the Defendants:
The defendants filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC to vacate the ex parte interim injunction granted on 12.8.1999. The defendants argued that the plaintiff had misrepresented facts and fraudulently obtained the injunction. They contended that the plaintiff's trademark was registered with a disclaimer of the word "SURAJ" and the device of "Sun," which was not disclosed to the court. The defendants also claimed that they had been using the trademark "SURAJ CHHAP" since 1993 and had established a good reputation in the market.

3. Infringement of Trademark:
The court examined whether the plaintiff's trademark "SURAJ CHHAP" was validly registered. The plaintiff's trademark was registered with a disclaimer that the registration did not grant exclusive rights to the use of the word "SURAJ" and the device of "Sun." The court noted that the plaintiff had not disclosed this disclaimer in the plaint or during the ex parte hearing. The court held that the plaintiff's misrepresentation of material facts and suppression of the disclaimer warranted the vacation of the interim injunction and dismissal of the suit.

4. Infringement of Copyright:
The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the artistic work in the labels and pouches used for their products. However, the court found that the defendants were the prior adopters and users of the impugned trademark "SURAJ CHHAP" and the particular pouch design. The court held that the defendants had superior rights to the trademark and the pouch design, and the plaintiff was not entitled to a temporary injunction.

5. Passing Off:
The plaintiff also claimed common law rights for action for passing off due to long and extensive use of the trademark "SURAJ CHHAP." The court noted that the plaintiff had stopped using the trademark since 1979 and had only resumed business in 1999. The court inferred that the plaintiff had abandoned the trademark due to non-use for over 20 years. The court held that the plaintiff could not claim any rights based on an abandoned trademark and had no remedy against the defendants who had adopted and used the trademark during the period of non-use.

6. Alleged Misrepresentation and Suppression of Facts by the Plaintiff:
The court found that the plaintiff had misrepresented facts and suppressed material documents, including the disclaimer on the trademark registration. The court cited several judgments emphasizing that fraud and misrepresentation in court proceedings are serious offenses that undermine the administration of justice. The court concluded that the plaintiff's conduct warranted not only the recall of the interim injunction but also the dismissal of the suit.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the defendants' application (I.A. No. 8739/99) to vacate the ex parte interim injunction and dismissed the plaintiff's application (I.A. No. 7665/99) for a temporary injunction. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs, holding that the plaintiff had misrepresented facts, suppressed material documents, and practiced fraud on the court. The interim injunction granted on 12.8.1999 was vacated, and the suit was dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 20,000/-.