Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The application of the plaintiff for interim injunction in a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark and passing off, is for consideration. The plaintiff as registered proprietor of trademark "HAJMOLA" in respect of goods in Class 05 has instituted the present suit for restraining the defendant from using the mark "PACHMOLA" in respect of the same goods. On the counsel for the plaintiff citing the judgment dated 4th July, 2008 of the Division Bench of this court in Pankaj Goel Vs. Dabur Ltd. FAO(OS) No.82/2008 upholding the ex parte order of injunction (also at the instance of the plaintiff) restraining appellant in that case from using the mark "RASMOLA" in relation to the same goods and further upon the counsel for the plaintiff informing that the Special Leave Petition preferred to the Supreme Court against the said judgment of the Division Bench had been dismissed, vide ex parte order dated 17th December, 2008 in the present case, the defendant till the disposal of the application was restrained from using the trademark "PACHMOLA" or any other mark deceptively similar to the trademark "HAJMOLA" of the plaintiff in respect of digestive tablets or any other chewing tablets. 

            and    acquiesced        in     the     use   of     the      trademark

            "PACHMOLA" by the defendant;


      i.    that the plaintiff itself has allowed use of marks

            "SATMOLA",          "SWADMOLA",                "SIDHMOLA"                 &
"CHATMOLA" by various third parties and has concealed the said facts also from this court and is not entitled to the relief on this ground also;
j. that the word "HAJMOLA" or "MOLA" is common to the trade and is in extensive use by various manufacturers of Ayurvedic and Digestive Tablets, Churan etc. for which reason the plaintiff is disentitled to the relief; 
      k.    instances of other registrations are given;


      l.    that various third parties have been opposing the
plaintiff's application for registration in respect of trademark "HAJMOLA" and which oppositions are still pending and which also were not disclosed in the plaint; m. that the plaintiff itself had in various applications for registration disclaimed the trademark "HAJMOLA" and/or word "MOLA"
n. That "MOLA" is sui generis and in public domain; o. the plaintiff claims registration since 1972 but even prior thereto "CREAMOLA" was registered since the year 1943;
p. that the plaintiff had made false and vague allegations of having become aware of the defendant just prior to the institution of the suit;
q. that there is no similarity between "HAJMOLA" & "PACHMOLA" or in the packaging or the trade dress of the products of the plaintiff and the defendant and no possibility of any confusion;