PANKAJ GOEL Vs. DABUR INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the ex-parte injunction order dated 20th December, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. The trial Court after holding that the Plaintiff's/ Respondent's Mark HAJMOLA was a well known mark under Section 2(zg) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 held that the Defendant's mark RASMOLA for the same product was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion in the minds of the customers of these products, especially children. Consequently, by virtue of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge restrained the Appellant/Defendant from using the mark RASMOLA and in particular the suffix MOLA in respect of the digestive tablets manufactured and sold by it.

(2.) At the outset, we suggested to both the parties that we would request the learned Single Judge to expeditiously dispose of the injunction application, as any decision by us would deprive either of the party to a right of appeal. However, Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned Senior Counsel for appellant submitted that as the learned Single Judge had not disposed of either the injunction application or the Appellant's Application for vacation of injunction within thirty days, the present appeal was maintainable. In any event, both the parties requested this Court to dispose of the present appeal on merits. Consequently, with the consent of both the parties the present appeal is being taken up for disposal.

(3.) Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the Appellant has been using the mark RASMOLA for its product namely digestive tablets since 1989. He further contended that the Appellant's mark had been registered vide Certificate dated 3rd July, 1996. Consequently, Mr. Arun Jaitley submits that no suit for infringement is maintainable against the Appellant.