RAMURAM CHOUDHARY Vs. JAGDAMBA PLASTER INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 4th of February, 2014 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 4, Bikaner, whereby learned Court below has declined the prayer of temporary injunction to the appellant -plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction.

(2.) PRECISELY , the appellant has averred, in the plaint, that it is manufacturer of plaster of paris, zypsm powder and allied products since 2011 and is having a registered trademark for its products 'HITECH'. It is pleaded, in the plaint, that the respondent -defendant is also a manufacturer of the same products with trade mark 'I -TEK' and by using that trade mark, respondent -defendant is misleading the respective consumers to sell its products by projecting these products to be of the trademark of appellant by taking advantage of simily in trade marks.

(3.) THE application for temporary injunction is contested by the respondent and the learned Court below, on appreciation of materials available on record, found that the appellant has failed to prove prima facie case in its favour. That apart, the learned Court below has also recorded a definite finding that appellant -plaintiff has failed to establish other ingredients i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable loss for grant of temporary injunction.