Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"The principles which should govern the Court in granting or withholding a temporary injunction in trade mark infringement actions are well-settled: See recent decision Henry Hemmings, Ltd. Vs. George Hemmings, Ltd. (1951 (68) RPC 47). As a temporary injunction is merely of a provisional nature and does not conclude the rights of the parties in any way, the Court will exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant only in strong cases. The plaintiff must make out a prima facie case in support of his application for the ad interim injunction and must satisfy the Court that his legal right has been infringed and in all probability will succeed ultimately in the action. This does not mean, however, that the Court should examine in detail the facts of the case and anticipate or prejudice the verdict which might be pronounced after the hearing of the suit or that the plaintiff should make out a case which would entitle him at all events to relief at the hearing. Colman Vs. Farrow & Co. (1898 (15) RPC 198), Hoover, Ltd. Vs. Air-way Ltd. (1936 (53) RPC 399), Upper Assam Tea Co. Vs. Herbert and Co. (1890 (7) RPC 183), Star Cycle Co., Ltd. Vs. Frankenburg (1906 (23) RPC 337). In fact the Court will not ordinarily grant an interlocutory injunction if a large amount of evidence is necessary to support the plaintiff's case. The proper course in such a case is to ask for the trial of the action. The injury must be actual or imminent. Pinel & Cie v. Maison Pinet, Ltd. (1895 (14) RPC 933) Where the defendant disputes the plaintiff's title to the mark or contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief by reason of the acquiescence or delay or other estoppel or of the defendant's concurrent rights, the Court will be guided by the balance of inconvenience which may arise from granting or withholding the injunction as well as the justice of the cause after considering all the circumstances in the suit. In other words, where the plaintiff's title is disputed or the fact of infringement or misrepresentation amounting to a bar to the action or some other defence is plausibly alleged upon the interlocutory motion, the Court in granting or refusing the interim injunction is guided principally by the balance of convenience that is by the relative amount of damage which seems likely to result if the injunction is granted and the plaintiff ultimately fails or if it is refused and he ultimately succeeds; Read Brothers Vs. Richardson and Co. (1881 (45) LT 54), Hommel Vs. Bauer & Co. (1903 (20) RPC 801).
... It is necessary that an application for interlocutory injunction should be made immediately after the plaintiff becomes aware of the infringement of the mark. Improper and unexplained delay is fatal to an application for interlocutory injunction. The interim injunction will not be granted if the plaintiff has delayed interfering until the defendant has built up a large trade in which he has notoriously used the mark. North British Rubber Co., Ltd. Vs. Gormully and Jeffery Manufacturing Co. (1894 (12) RPC 17), Army and Navy Cooperative Society, Ltd. Vs. Army Navy and Civil Service Cooperative Society of South Africa Ltd. (1902 (19) RPC 574), Hayward Bros. Ltd. Vs. Peakall (1909 (26) RPC 89), Yost Typewriter Co. Ltd. Vs. Typewriter Exchange Co. (1902 (19) RPC 422), Royal Warrant Holders' Assn. Vs. Slade & Co., Ltd. (1908 (25) RPC 245)."