Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Temporary or interim injunction is a rule of equity recognised by Statutes like the provisions of Order 39 Civil Procedure Code and/or special provisions made in this behalf and if there are no special provisions the courts' inherent power or a special jurisdiction in the constitution of the court. In cases of interlocutory injunctions the court unusually has to consider whether the case is so clear and free from objection on equitable ground that it ought to interfere to preserve property without waiting for the right to be finally established. This depends upon a variety of circumstances and it is impossible to lay down any general rule on the subject by which the discretion of the court ought in all cases to be regulated but in no case does the court grant an interlocutory injunction as of course. Courts in England follow the rules of avoiding trying the same question on two occasions one for the purpose of interlocutory injunction and the other for the purpose of final determination unless they find that the right to relief is clear, that there is no doubt as to legal rights. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 21 p. 364 Para 763). It is not necessary that the court should find a case which would entitled the plaintiff to relief at all events; it is sufficient if the court finds a case which shows that there is a substantial question to be investigated and that matters ought to be preserved in stautus quo until that question can be finally disposed of ............... where the plaintiff Is asserting a right he should show a strong prima facie case atleast in support of the right which he asserts but the mere fact that there is a doubt as to the existence of such a right is not sufficient to prevent the court from granting - an interlocutory injunction although it is a matter for serious attention .................. where any doubt exists as to the plaintiff's right, or if his right is not disputed but its violation is denied the court in determining whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted takes into consideration the balance of convenience to the parties and the nature of the injury which the defendant, on the one hand, would suffer if the injunction was granted and he should ultimately turn out to be right and that which the plaintiff on the other hand might sustain if the injunction was refused and he should ultimately turn out to be right. The burden of proof that the incovenience which the plaintiff will suffer by the refusal of the injunction is greater than that which the defendant will suffer, if it is granted lies on the plaintiff ........................ In considering whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted the court has regard to the conduct and dealings of the parties before application was made to be court by the plaintiff to preserve and protect his right since the jurisdiction to interfere being purely equitable, is governed by equitable principles.
The said judgment also carriers an extract from Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 10th Edn. page 337, Paragraphs 15-64, which reads as follows :
"The plaintiff in an infringement or passing off action may move, as soon as the action is commenced for an interim injunction to restrain the defendant until the hearing of the action or further order from continuing or committing the infringement or deceptive conduct of which he complains. Quite apart from the advantage of stopping the infringements without delay, experience shows that a successful motion for interlocutory injunction normally puts an end to the litigation and the infringement with a great saving in expense compared with a full trial. Accordingly, such a motion should be considered in every case; and, accordingly proprietors of trade marks should make it a rule to take action upon every instance of infringement with the necessary speed to enable such a motion to be launched. In extremely urgent cases where the right is very clear an ex parte injunction may be obtained before the full hearing of the motion."
If the defendant shows a prima facie case of concurrent right the court ordinarily will not interfere by interlocutory injunction. But it is not the practice to consider the validity of the registration of the mark on a motion for interlocutory injunction : whilst a mark remains on the register (even wrongly) it is not desirable that others should imitate it.
In case where the defendant claimed a right to the mark in question, and had applied to register it himself, an interlocutory motion for an injunction by the plaintiff was ordered to stand over pending the result of the application.
where there is a substantial case to be tried the application for an interim injunction may be ordered to stand over to the hearing upon the defendant undertaking to keep an account of his sales under the mark objected to ............"
"The interim injunction being intended only to preserve the plaintiff's right from serious detriment until the hearing, is at any rate in cases in which the right appears to be doubtful or honestly disputed, limited as closely as possible to what is sufficient to attain that end. The plaintiff must give a cross-undertaking to abide by any order of the court as to damages for the loss (if any) occasioned by it to the defendant should it turn out at the hearing that it ought not to have been granted. If an undertaking to the court is given in lieu of an interlocutory injunction there is similarly inserted in the order a cross-undertaking in damages. Where the plaintiff is a foreign corporation it and its British subsidiary may give the cross-undertaking."