Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal in Trademark Injunction Case

M/s Kailash Masala Industries Ordered to Pay Costs; Court Emphasizes on Conduct and Lack of Tangible Evidence

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench dismissed an appeal filed by M/s Kailash Masala Industries against the rejection of their application for a temporary injunction in a trademark dispute case. The court, presided over by Justice Shailesh P. Brahme, upheld the trial court's decision to reject the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), emphasizing the need for the applicant to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.

The appeal stemmed from a regular civil suit filed by the appellant for perpetual injunction and action for passing off against Organic Khandeshi Food Products and another respondent. The appellant alleged that their trademark was being infringed upon by the respondents. However, the High Court noted several lapses on the part of the appellant, including the absence of tangible material evidence such as photocopies of the trademark or evidence of goodwill to support their claim.

Justice Brahme highlighted that the appellant's conduct, including adjournments and lack of effort for expeditious disposal of the suit, significantly influenced the court's decision. The court pointed out that the appellant had failed to produce crucial evidence, such as income tax returns or bank statements, to substantiate their claims of business turnover and goodwill.

The judgment also referenced previous legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, asserting that equity principles must be considered, and relief can be denied due to the appellant's lapses. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the appellant and directed that the suit be disposed of within six months, urging both parties to cooperate with the trial court.

This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that parties adhere to procedural requirements and present concrete evidence when seeking equitable relief. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of conduct in legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving temporary injunctions.

Bottom Line:

Trademark Law - Appeal against rejection of application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC - Court emphasizes that the applicant must establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss - Conduct of the appellant and absence of tangible material play a significant role in deciding the case.

Statutory provision(s): Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

M/s. Kailash Masala Industries v. Organic Khandeshi Food Products, (Bombay)(Aurangabad Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2817202