Karnataka High Court
Varalaxmi Industries, vs M/S Raghavendra Rice Industries on 23 November, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.100446 OF 2015 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.VARALAXMI INDUSTRIES,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT 174/B, BUDAGUMPA ROAD,
KARATAGI, GANGAVATHI TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583229, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
(1) V. SHARANAPPA, S/O VENKOBANNA SHETTY,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINES,
R/O: KARATAGI, TQ: GANGAVATHI.
(2) VENKOBANNA S/O ERANNA SETTY,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KARATAGI, TQ: GANGAVATHI.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.S.R.KAMALACHARAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. RAGHAVENDRA RICE INDUSTRIES,
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY IT'S PARTNER,
SRI S.E.GOPAL SETTY,
S/O S.E. VENKANNA SETTY,
AGED: ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NAVALGI ROAD, BEVIHAL,
KARATAGI-583229, GANGAVATHI TALUKA,
KOPPAL DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.V.VIDYA IYER, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 43(r) RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
ORDER DECREE DATED 6.11.2014 PASSED IN OS NO.1/2014 ON
2
THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KOPPAL AT KOPPAL, ALLOWING
THE SUIT FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the order passed on IA No.1 in OS No.1/2014 on the file of the District Judge, Koppal (for short, 'the Trial Court').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.
3. Plaintiff has filed OS No.1/2014 contending that it's firm is carrying on business in the name of Raghavendra Rice Industries, dealing in Rice, Broken rice, Rice brawn etc., since 1996. Plaintiff contended that it got registered the name of Sri.Raghavendra brand and has been issued registered trade mark with the pictorial representation of Sri.Raghavendra Swamy under the provisions of Trade mark Act,1999 and the said trade mark is renewed for further 10 years and is valid till July-2017. It was alleged that the defendant is marketing it's product rice under the name 3 'Brundhavan' with the picture of Sri.Raghavendra Swamy. The plaintiff's brand and the defendant's brand are deceptively similar. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought for mandatory injunction against the defendant to withdraw from market deceptively similar goods etc. In the said suit proceedings, plaintiff has filed IA No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking exparte ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the defendant from marketing it's products under deceptively similar pictorial representation of Sri.Raghavendra Swamy on it's products till disposal of the suit, on the basis of which the exparte order was granted. Thereafter, on service of summons defendant appeared, filed written statement and objections to IA No.1. On hearing both the parties, the Trial Court allowed IA No.1 confirming the ad-interim temporary injunction granted, restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar pictorial representation of Raghavendra on it's products with registered trade mark of plaintiff. Accordingly, defendant is restrained from using deceptively similar trade mark till 4 disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved, the defendant is in appeal.
4. Learned counsel Sri.S.R.Kamalacharan, appearing for the defendant/appellant would contend that the deity of Guru Sri.Raghavendra Swamy who is respected in Southern India is worshipped by many people. The name being generic, the plaintiff cannot monopolize pictorial device of Guru Sri.Raghavendra Swamy. The logo of Sri.Raghavendra Swamy is used by the plaintiff as his brand which consists of a background device of cow which is apparently not figured in the trade mark/brand used by the defendant. The font, size, colour etc., are entirely different in nature. Hence, there is no chance of any confusion in the minds of the purchasers. Though these two different names and logos namely, 'Raghavendra' and 'Brundavan' are apparent, the Trial Court without appreciating the same, allowed IA No.1, granted injunction against the defendant which has caused hardship to the business of the defendant. The issue involved requires to be adjudicated only after holding full 5 fledged trial and not merely based on the contentions made by the plaintiff, no injunction would have been granted by the Trial Court. Thus, defendant seeks for setting aside the order impugned by allowing the appeal.
5. On the other hand, Smt.V.Vidya Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is having the benefit of the injunction order passed in IA No.1 since 06.11.2014 and the trial has begun. Now, the matter is listed for cross examination of PW2. At this juncture, there is no necessity for this Court to interfere with the order passed on IA No.1 which has been granted after analyzing the material in extenso keeping in mind the prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused to the parties, if an interim injunction is not granted. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the appeal may be disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in an expedite manner.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciating material on record, it emerges that the plaintiff 6 is having benefit of injunction order since 06.11.2014. As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, considering the nature of the suit, full fledged trial would depict whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in the suit or not. Considering the stage of the suit, this court finds it appropriate not to interfere with the order impugned, particularly, when the matter is listed before the Trial Court for cross examination of PW2.
7. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of without going into the merits or demerits of the case, with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the matter in an expedite manner. Parties to the suit shall co-operate for the early disposal of the suit.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE hmb