SAILOR SALES Vs. HARISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed challenging the interim injunction order granted in favour of the respondent by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 in CS(COMM) 494/2019 vide order dtd. 16/12/2020.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants states that the learned District Judge failed to appreciate the fact that both the parties were doing business together since the beginning and both the entities, M/s Smitz Polytex and Smitz Marketing, ran smoothly between 2007 and 2015. He states that as both the entities were doing a joint business, the adoption and use of the mark SMITZ and their use of the trading name was known to all including the respondent-plaintiff. He also states that the appellant No.3 is the prior user of the mark SMITZ, as appellant No.3 designed and adopted the mark in 1999. He points out that in 2015, when the respondent owed a huge amount to the appellants, the respondent with a dishonest intent decided to separate their business. He undertakes that the appellants shall not use the mark INDIGO.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent states that appellants' use of mark SMITZ is dishonest. He states that in the past the respondent had permitted the appellants to use the mark SMITZ as the appellants were supplying all its goods to the respondent-plaintiff.