TALOD GRUH UDHYOG Vs. BAHUCHAR GRRUH UDHYOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance, which is voiced in the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is that inspite of the suit filed by the petitioner -original plaintiff as far back as in the month of September, 2008 alongwith an application for interim injunction restraining the present respondent -original defendant, agents, servants, stockists and/or distributors from manufacturing, marketing, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in any manner whatsoever in goods sold under the trade mark, which is identical and deceptively similar to the petitioner's -original plaintiff's trade mark so as to infringe the petitioner's -original plaintiff's registered trade mark, the learned trial Court is not deciding and disposing of the application, Exh. 5 and the ultimate sufferer is the petitioner -original plaintiff.

(2.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioner -original plaintiff that inspite of the registered trade mark "Talod" in favour of the petitioner -original plaintiff, the respondent -original defendant is using the same so as to infringe the registered trade mark of the petitioner -original plaintiff and, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have at the threshold and/or initial stage granted the adinterim injunction. It is submitted by Shri Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner -original plaintiff that the respondent -original defendant has not filed any reply to the application, Exh. 5 and/or any written statement and, therefore, it is submitted that in the near future, there is no possibility that the learned trial Court will decide and dispose of the application, Exh. 5.

(3.) It is to be noted that the petitioner -original plaintiff had instituted the suit for declaration and permanent injunction alleging infringement of the registered trade mark held by the petitioner -original plaintiff and further alleging that the respondent -original defendant is infringing the said trade mark by using identical and deceptively similar trade mark as of the petitioner's -original plaintiff's trade mark. Normally, such an application for interim injunction is to be decided and disposed of at the earliest. Looking to the nature of the controversy and the dispute in the suit, more particularly, when the allegations are with respect to infringement of the trade mark and/or infringement of the copyright, great prejudice will be caused to the parties if such an interim injunction application is not decided. It cannot be disputed that the Trade Mark Act and/or Copy Right Act are special statutes to protect the persons in whose favour there are registered trade marks and/or having copy right. Looking to the provisions of the aforesaid special statutes, it cannot be disputed that any dispute under the said Acts can have wide implications in the commercial field and/or their respective business and, therefore, endeavour of the Court should be that such dispute are resolved at the earliest within the time bound programme and/or atleast the interim injunction applications are to be decided and disposed of at the earliest, more particularly, when only notice has been issued by the learned trial Court in an application, Exh. 5 for interim injunction, so that there is no further damage to the party/person who alleges infringement of trade mark; infringement of copy right and/or passing off action. By not deciding the interim injunction application and/or resolving the dispute under the aforesaid special statutes can have serious consequence in the business inclusive of reputation and business transactions. Under the circumstances, the same are required to be resolved at the earliest. In the present case, it is very unfortunate that inspite of the allegation with respect to the infringement of trade mark, the learned trial Court after having issued notice only is not further proceeding with and deciding and disposing of the application for interim injunction and the same is being adjourned by the learned trial Court. Though it is the submission of Shri R.R. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner -original plaintiff that normally where there are allegations of infringement of trade mark, the learned trial Court, on considering prima facie case, ought to have granted the ad -interim injunction at the threshold but this Court is not further considering the said aspect as this Court proposes to dispose of the present Special Civil Application directing the learned trial Court to decide and dispose of the application, Exh. 5 at the earliest and within the stipulated time.