LAWS(APH)-2007-6-94

ADEPU SURENDRA Vs. ADEPU RAVINDRA

Decided On June 26, 2007
ADEPU SURENDRA Appellant
V/S
ADEPU RAVINDRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is appearing under the caption 'interlocutory'.

(2.) SRI K. Hema Prakash Rao, learned Counsel representing the plaintiff having lodged a Caveat entered appearance and opposed the granting of any interim order in this civil miscellaneous appeal. Mrs. A. Sarala, learned Counsel representing the appellant-defendant made elaborate submissions and both the Counsel on record made a request for the final disposal of the civil miscellaneous appeal itself and hence this Court is disposing of the civil miscellaneous appeal itself finally.

(3.) MRS. Sarala, learned Counsel representing the appellant-respondent-defendant would submit that the relationship between the parties is not in controversy and the fact that the respondent obtained the registration of the trade mark without putting the other family members on notice also is not in serious controversy. The learned Counsel would submit that the label popularly known as 'adepu 222 and adepu 555' are of the joint family and the joint family has been utilising the same and when that being so when the same is not shown even in the partition between the family members, merely because respondent-plaintiff had obtained the registration of the trade mark just recently in deceitful manner without putting the other family members on notice, preventing the appellant from using the trade mark by virtue of a restraint order, cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the contents of the affidavit filed by the father in support of the stand taken by the appellant. At any rate, the Counsel would submit that when these are the matters to be gone into at the time of final disposal of the suit and when strong prima facie case was not made out by the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff, granting of temporary injunction is not just and proper. The learned counsel also had pointed out to the relevant statutory provisions under the Trade Marks act, 1999. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions.