Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"In this case there is no tenable explanation for the inordinate delay of at least 20 years in the plaintiff filing the suit. When the defendant's product has been in the market for nearly 30 years and their sales have gone to Crores of rupees the plaintiff at this stage cannot seek the equitable relies of temporary injunction to stop the defendant using the impugned mark. The learned City Civil Judge has himself noted that the sales of defendant's product is much more than the sale of plaintiff's product in India. If the defendant continues to use this mark till the matter is finally decided the plaintiff who has waited all these years cannot complain that he would be put to irreparable injury. On the other grant of temporary injunction would prevent the defendant from carrying on their business which has been developed during the past 3 decades at considerable expense. If the defendants are asked to adopt a new mark even before the rights are finally determined, for their mark, it would cause serious hardship to them. As observed by the Supreme Court one of the factors which will have to be taken into account while granting temporary injunction is whether the defendants are yet to start the business or whether they have started the business recently. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case it has to be held that the balance of convenience lies not in favour of granting temporary injunction. While refusing the temporary injunction the defendant could be put on some terms to ensure that the plaintiff would not be seriously prejudiced, if ultimately they succeed in the suit."

(i) SRI GOPAL ENGINEERING AND CHEMICAL WORKS v. POMX LABORATORY, AIR 1992 Delhi pg 302

(ii) CHANDRABHAN DEMBLA TRADING DELHI v. BHARATH SERVING MACHINE CO., BIKONER'3,

(iii) DEVIDOSS AND CO., v. ALTUR ABBOYEE CHETTY AND CO, AIR 1941 Madras Pg 31 In all these cases the Courts have refused grant of temporary injunction on the ground of delay, when the suit for infringement of trademark has been filed after a certain period of accrual of cause of action.

(iv) In the case UNIPLY INDUSTRIES v. UNICORN PLYWOOD PVT., the Court was considering as to who is the prior user of a trademark, where the field of activity between the two parties is common. The Court has held that the disputed facts have to be thrashed out at the trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the interim injunction granted by the two Courts and directed the Trial Court to dispose off the matter as expeditiously as possible.