9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Grant of temporary injunction in a suit regarding trademark infringement. 2. Prior use of trade marks by the parties involved. 3. Application for registration of trade marks under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. 4. Consideration of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable hardship in granting interim injunction. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed a suit claiming to be the proprietor of trade marks UNIPLY and UNIBOARD and sought an injunction against the respondents for copying the same. The trial court initially granted an ex parte temporary injunction in favor of the appellant. However, subsequent proceedings revealed that the respondents had established their factory and been using the trade marks since 1993, while the appellant started business in 1996. The trial court and the High Court held that the respondents had prior use of the trade marks, leading to the setting aside of the temporary injunction in favor of either party. 2. The High Court considered various pieces of evidence, including advertisements, invoices, and letters from dealers, to establish the prior use of trade marks by the respondents since 1993. The appellant's claim of prior use was not substantiated, and the courts found in favor of the respondents based on the evidence presented regarding the use of trade marks in question. 3. Both parties had applied for registration of their trade marks under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The court emphasized that the Registrar would need to investigate and determine the respective rights of the parties for registration, considering the provisions of the Act. Ownership of inherently distinctive marks is governed by the priority of use, and legal protection against infringement is granted upon adoption and use in trade. 4. The appellant argued that the principles of passing off action and infringement of registered trade marks were not correctly applied. The court highlighted the importance of establishing a strong prima facie case, considering continuous prior user, volume of sales, and familiarity of the public with the mark. The court set aside the order of temporary injunction, emphasizing the need for a thorough trial to determine the rights of the parties under the Act. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the prior use of trade marks, the application for registration under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and the necessity of establishing a strong prima facie case for granting temporary injunctions in cases of trademark infringement. The decision highlighted the importance of investigating the rights of parties through proper legal procedures and emphasized the significance of continuous prior use and legal protection against infringement.
|
