M.S. ELECTRICALS Vs. MEENU ELECTRIC CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant herein is the Defendant in O.S. No. 25440/2008. The suit is filed by the Plaintiff seeking for judgment and decree for permanent injunction against the Defendant from infringing the Plaintiffs registered trade mark. In the said suit, application in LA. No. 1 was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking for temporary injunction. The trial Court after considering the rival contentions has allowed the application and granted temporary injunction by its order dated 01.12.2008. The Defendant therein is therefore questioning the said order before this Court in this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the Plaintiff claims to carry on the business in manufacture and sale of electronic goods, electrical cables, control panels, single phase preventers, auto start units, copper winding wires etc. The business is said to have commenced on 01.06.1981 and the Plaintiff adapted the trade mark 'MEECO' for the goods manufactured by them. The said trade mark is registered under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act. 1999 (for short the 'Act') as No. 1721518 in Class -9. The trade mark is said to be renewed for a further period of ten years with effect from 05.11.2006. The artistic work 'MEECO' is also registered under the provisions of the Copy Right Act. 1957. The Plaintiff has also provided the details relating to the sales turnover from the year 1981 to 2008. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant has adapted a similar trade mark "MEEKO" and applied for registration before the Trade Mark Registry. The Plaintiff has objected to the same. The Defendant did not contest the matter and the application came to be abandoned. The Plaintiff therefore contends that the Defendant cannot adapt a trade mark which is phonetically similar to the Plaintiffs trade mark and despite the same not being registered, the Defendant is using the same on high tech PVC cables, wires etc. The action of the Defendant therefore amounts to deceit and fraud. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the said suit.

(3.) IN line with the rival contentions in the plaint and the written statement, the parties have also filed their respective application and objection statement while seeking for the interlocutory order of temporary injunction. The trial Court while considering the application has taken note of the rival contentions and has allowed the application of the Plaintiff. While considering the correctness or otherwise of the conclusion reached by trial Court in the limited scope available in an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court would only notice as to whether the trial Court has acted within the legal principles while considering the application for temporary injunction and as to whether the conclusion reached would suffer from perversity.