Gujarat High Court
Dipak Agro Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd vs Nimeshchandra Kishorchandra Agrawal on 24 March, 2015
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani
C/SCA/5016/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5016 of 2015
=============================================
DIPAK AGRO OIL MILLS PVT. LTD....Petitioner(s)
Versus
NIMESHCHANDRA KISHORCHANDRA AGRAWAL....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR RR SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No.1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date : 24/03/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Mr. R.R. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's trademark is registered with effect from 6th October, 1989 and has been renewed from time to time and is still in force. Referring to Annexures 'B' and 'C' to the petition, it was pointed out that the petitioner's trademark label is 'AJEY Mustard Oil' and the colour scheme is as shown in Annexure 'B' to the petition whereas, the respondent herein has adopted a similar trademark label 'AJAY' with the same colour scheme arrangement and get-up. It was submitted that the trademark 'AJAY' label used by the respondent is deceptively similar to 'AJEY' in its brand name used for mustard oil so as to infringe the petitioner's registered trademark 'AJEY' bearing No.517956 in Class - 29 as of 10 th June, 1989. It is pointed out that the petitioner's brand enjoys a good reputation and goodwill in the market since more than 40 years and the annual turnover of sales of the petitioner for the year 2014-15 till January, 2015 exceeded Page 1 of 2 C/SCA/5016/2015 ORDER Rs.27,65,36,013.55. Thus, the petitioner has established a very high reputation in the trade under the trademark 'AJEY' label. It was submitted that, therefore, the respondent is required to be restrained from using a deceptively similar trademark. It was submitted that, therefore, the trial court was not justified in not granting ex parte ad-interim relief.
2. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner and more particularly, on a perusal of the trademark label of the petitioner as compared to the trademark label of the respondent which prima facie appears to be deceptively similar to the petitioner's trademark, the court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.
3. Hence, issue notice returnable on 20th April, 2015. By way of ad-interim relief, the respondent is restrained from using the 'AJAY' trademark brand name label which is similar to the petitioner's registered trademark 'AJEY' label registered under No.517956 in Class - 29 as of 10th June, 1989.
4. In addition to the normal mode of service, the petitioner is also permitted to serve the respondent through Speed Post at its own cost.
( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki Page 2 of 2