M/S. ORANGE CITY MOBILE COLLECTION, 17, GANDHI GRAIN MARKET, OPP : AXIS BANK, CHAPROO NAGAR SQUARE, CENTRAL AVENUE ROAD, NEAR DENA BANK, NAGPUR, THROUGH ITS PARTNERS Vs. M/S. CITY COLLECTION, A DULY REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, SHOP NO.2, NEELKAMAL COMPLEX, MAHAJAN MARKET, SITABULDI, NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order of injunction passed in the Trade Mark Suit filed by the respondents temporarily restraining the appellant from using the trade mark or trade name "City Collection", in any manner, whatsoever, for business purposes during pendency of the suit is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal filed under Order-XLIII, Rule 1 (r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [for short "the Code"]. Parties in the appeal are being referred to by their original status in the suit.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that it is a Partnership Firm, duly registered and carrying on business since the year 2001 using the trade name "City Collection". It carries on business of sale of mobile phones, cameras, perfumes etc. The said trade name has been registered under the Copy Right Act, 1957, on 29th Aug., 2013. Its application for registration of the trade mark "City Collection" under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 [for short "the said Act"] made on 28th Dec., 2011 was pending. According to the plaintiffs, their brand name was well recognised in business circles and that they had acquired immense goodwill and reputation in that regard. On account of prior adoption, long and continuous use, the said trade mark was solely associated with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs found that the defendant, by using a deceptively similar mark, had started its business in the name "Orange City Mobile Collection" and was in the field of mobile distribution. The trade mark logo of the plaintiffs was copied and this was done with a view to cause confusion amongst the public, thereby affecting the goodwill of the plaintiffs and violating its rights. It is on this basis that in April, 2014, the plaintiffs filed Trade Mark Suit No. 2 of 2014 seeking to permanently restrain the defendant from using its trade name and passing off its goods as those of the plaintiffs. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction seeking relief of restraining the defendant from using the said trade name for its business purpose during pendency of the suit.

(3.) The defendant filed its reply to the application for temporary injunction and opposed the same. It was stated that it was doing business of sale of mobile phones in the name and style of "Orange City Mobile Collection" by using common words being "City" and "Collection" It was denied that this was done with a view to mislead the members of the public and that no customer could be confused or misled by adoption of said name, as alleged by the plaintiffs.