Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Google Play Store:

Apple App Store:

6. Ms. Sukumar, ld. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendants are using the identical mark 'BOLT' with an identical colour scheme for the business of Electric Vehicle charging points, which is similar to one of the services provided by the Plaintiff. She submits that the use of the mark 'BOLT' by the Defendants is completely violative of the global reputation and goodwill which has been acquired by the Plaintiff, and would constitute passing off. She further submits that the Plaintiff has around 100 registrations in more than 50 countries. Accordingly, an urgent interim injunction is sought in the matter.

16. The importance of an interim injunction in intellectual property matters has been emphasised in the judgment in Laxmikant v. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr. [(2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 65]. The relevant observations of the Court in the said judgment are extracted below:

17. We are conscious of the law that this Court would not ordinarily interfere with the exercise of discretion in the matter of grant of temporary injunction by the High Court and the Trial Court and substitute its own discretion therefor except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the order of the Courts under scrutiny ignores the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion [(see Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. and N.R. Dongre v. Whirpool Corpn.]. However, the present one is a case falling within the well-accepted exceptions. Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court have kept in view and applied their mind to the relevant settled principles of law governing the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction in trade mark and trade name disputes. A refusal to grant an injunction in spite of the availability of facts, which are prima facie established by overwhelming evidence and material available on record justifying the grant thereof, occasion a failure of justice and such injury to the plaintiff as would not be capable of being undone at a latter stage. The discretion exercised by the Trial Court and the High Court against the plaintiff, is neither reasonable nor judicious. The grant of interlocutory injunction to the plaintiff could not have been refused, therefore, it becomes obligatory on the part of this Court to interfere."

17. As per the experience seen in intellectual property cases, the relief of interim injunction, including at the ex-parte stage and ad-interim stage, is extremely important. Such matters do not merely involve the interest of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, which are the contesting parties before the Court, but also involve the interest of the customers/consumers of the products and services in question. Intellectual property cases relate to a wide gamut of businesses such as - medicines, FMCG, food products, financial services, technology, creative works such as books, films, music, etc. Recent trends also point towards large scale misuse on the internet. In some cases, due to misuse of known marks and brands, the consumers are being duped into parting with large sums of money. The rights of the parties are affected almost on a daily basis as there is continuous manufacturing, selling, and offering of services or goods to the customers. The ambit of urgent interim relief that may be required to be granted is extremely varied and depends on the facts of each case. Such reliefs are usually granted by Courts not merely for protection of statutory and common law rights, but also in order to avoid confusion, deception, unfair and fraudulent practices, etc., in the marketplace.

Hence, even if there was delay on the part of the plaintiff in filing of the present suit as has been claimed by the defendant, the same delay would not be sufficient to deter grant of injunction in favor of plaintiff.

29. The plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case. Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. An ad interim injunction is passed restraining the defendants, its officers, agents etc. from manufacturing, exporting, importing or offering for sale, advertising or in any manner dealing with goods not limited to E-Rickshaws bearing the mark DMW or any other mark which are identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's BMW marks."