Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The learned Single Judge granted an ad-interim injunction on 17.07.2020 in O.A.No.258 of 2020. On receipt of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed Application No. 1532 of 2020 to suspend the order dated 17.07.2020 passed in O.A. No. 258 of 2020. The defendants had also filed Application No. 1533 of 2020 for vacating the interim order passed on 17.07.2020.

12. Thus, the learned Single Judge made the order of interim injunction granted in O.A.No.258 of 2020 on 17.07.2020 absolute. While making the interim injunction absolute, the learned Single Judge had also imposed costs of Rs.5 lakhs to be paid jointly by the defendants to the Dean, Adyar Cancer Institute (WIA), East Canal Bank Road, Adyar, Chennai and further Rs.5 lakhs as costs to be paid jointly by the defendants to the Dean, Government Yoga and Naturopathy Medical College and Hospital, Arumbakkam, Chennai-106.

29. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants that the manufacture and sale of the product of the appellants/defendants will not have any detrimental effect on the plaintiff's trade mark. The products of the defendants had gained significant reputation all over the country. When the defendants are using the product with due cause, without taking unlawful advantage, the question of detrimental effect to the plaintiff over such use, will not arise. The balance of convenience is in favour of the appellants/defendants for vacating the order of interim injunction granted by the learned Single Judge. The order of the learned Single Judge is therefore liable to be vacated by allowing this appeal. If the interim injunction is not vacated, irreparable injury and hardship would https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ cause to the defendants. The irreparable hardship and damage that would cause, would be, such that if the defendants were restrained to stop using the mark "Coronil", till the conclusion of trial, the reputation and goodwill gained in the market will come down significantly. If the defendants are forced to change their name, they will be left in an incongruous situation, whereby they will be made to drop the product in-toto in which event the appellants/ defendants will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

33. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ the second appellant that in case of confusion that takes place immediately or instantaneously, whereas, dilution if any takes place gradually and therfore the Courts should not readily grant injunction at the pre-trail stage. Since the product of the appellants/defendants and respondent/plaintiff are different and cater to different sections of the consumer, infringement cannot be inferred readily so as to grant interim injunction. It is further submitted that if there is alleged dilution, there is no scope for public interest and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled for any interim injunction under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. It is further submitted that the respondent/ plaintiff cannot pick and choose an element from the appellant/defendants label for interim injunction. He referred to the decision of this court in Rhizome Distilleries Private Limited Versus Union of India, reported in (2012) 2 Law Weekly 204 (DB), which was authored by one of us (Justice R.Subbiah), wherein the proprietor of the registered trade marks "Imperial Blue" filed application for rectification of the trade mark Rhizome's Imperial White, Rhizome's Imperial Red and Rhizome's Imperial Green registered and in favour of the Indian company before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB, by its order, allowed the application for rectification of the marks by holding that registration of the word "Imperial Gold" was in contravention of Section 11 of the Trade Marks https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Act, 1999. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court referred to para 23.15 of the McCarthy On Trade Marks And Unfair Competition, where it is observed that conflicting composition marks are to be compiled by looking at them as a whole, rather than breaking the mark up to their component parts for comparison which is referred to as "anti-dissection" rule. There the Court ultimately came to conclusion that if the marks "Rhizome's Imperial Gold" is compared with "Imperial blue" without splitting or dissection, there is no scope for concluding there was any confusion and thus allow the writ petition. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Satish Parasaran further submitted that under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 the discretion of granting registration with the disclaimer had been done away with. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff was obliged to obtain separate registration for each and every part of the trade mark separately to claim proprietary right. It is therefore submitted that, to maintain a suit for infringement under Section 29(4) of The Trade Marks Act, 1999, it was incumbent for the respondent/plaintiff to have obtained separate registration not only for the word "Coronil", but also for the other features of the label registered trade mark after the Trade Marks Act, 1999 came into force. It is therefore submitted that registration obtained for a composite mark by the respondent/plaintiff under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Act, 1958, did not enure to their right to file a suit for infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It was therefore submitted that the above suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was misconceived.