Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The other appeal arises from the suit filed by Parle Products Limited to enforce its rights in respect of its trade mark "GLUCO" registered in Class 30 of the Trade Marks Act. The defendant - Shakti Bhog Foods Limited contended that the mark "GLUCO" was descriptive and no one could have monopoly over the same as held by the Supreme Court in Corn Products Refining Company vs. Shangrila Food Products Limited1. The defendant also pointed out that the plaintiff had filed a suit in the Madras High Court in respect of the same mark "GLUCO" against Bakeman Industries Ltd. and the Madras High Court examined the objection about validity of the registration and refused to grant interim relief in favour of the plaintiff - Parle Products Limited. The defendant, therefore, contended that in such a situation the Supreme Court has 1 AIR 1960 SC 142 Uday AppL674.2012-23.12.2014-D held that the mark "GLUCO" was descriptive and no one could have monopoly over the same. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to contend that the application for injunction must be heard and decided on the basis that the Court cannot examine prima facie validity of registration at the stage of hearing the injunction application.

Uday AppL674.2012-23.12.2014-D

40. We may also note that the Madras High Court has also taken a view that it is not impermissible to look at the validity of the registration at the interlocutory stage. In the case of Malar Network (P) Ltd. v. Arun Prasath5, the plaintiff had filed a suit for infringement to restrain the defendants in respect of the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'Malar TV' as the defendant had started a business under the name 'Malar TV'. One of the defences to the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff was that the word 'Malar' was a general word in Tamil, it meant a magazine. The learned Single Judge declined interlocutory relief holding that the words 'Malar TV' have become publicia juris. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed. In this case, the Madras High Court made a prima facie enquiry into the question whether the words in the trademark 'Malar' and 'TV' were publicia juris and did not automatically grant injunction on the basis of the registration. Same approach was taken in the case of Parle Products Ltd. v.