Skip to main content

Interim Relief - Temporary Injunctions- should not be based on Affidavits alone- Mujeeb Modern Rice Mills v. P. Doraisamy Gounder, (2010) 15 SCC 459

By
Interim Relief - Temporary Injunctions- should not be based on Affidavits alone - (2010) 15 SCC 459
The Apex Court held that temporary injunctions or any interim relief cannot be granted merely by filing affidavits without any documentary evidence. For granting Interim Relief the court should consider the prima facie case established on the bases of the documentary evidence. Mere filing of affidavit would not entitle parties Interim Relief.

S. 106 - Interim relief - Grant of - Determination of prior use - In absence of any evidence and only on affidavits -Impermissibility - Counter-suits for restraining use of Maharaja brand unregistered trademark by appellant and respondent against each other, both selling packaged rice - Division Bench of High Court granting interim relief to respondent in absence of documentary evidence and based solely on affidavits, concluding respondent was using trade mark prior in point of time to appellant - Impermissibility of - Held, it is inappropriate to decide issue on basis of affidavits alone in a case which relates to utilisation of a trade mark - In has to be, at least prima facie, established in application for interim relief that applicant has been utilising trade mark as claimed by it - Division Bench wrongly cast onus on appellant for establishing its claim without considering question as to whether respondent had led any evidence whatsoever to establish its claim on basis of which interim relief could be granted - When applications for registration of trade mark in question were admittedly pending, no documentary evidence was produced and court was to decide issue on the basis of the affidavits alone, no interim injunction should have been granted as prayed for by respondent – Interim relief granted to respondent set aside, (2010) 15 SCC 459.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

IPAB has allowed an appeal and granted patent to Pfizer for Tofacitinib and its salts

By
                                                    In a decision dated 21st August 2020 IPAB vide its  Order  has allowed an appeal and granted Patent  to Appellant M/s. PFIZER PRODUCTS INC., USA  for Tofacitinib and its salts. The appeal is against the   order dated 3 rd  September 2015 passed by the Controller of Patents under Section 15 of the Indian Patents Act, whereby the Appellant’s Indian patent application no. 00991/MUMNP/2003 was rejected on the ground that it is hit by section 13(1)(b) and being non-patentable under section 3(d). The Appellant requested for an urgent hearing of the matter and IPAB considered the request for urgent hearing and passed the present order.  This Patent application claimed the compound 3-{(3R,4R)-4-Methyl-3-[methyl-(7H-pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidin-4-yl)-amino]-piper...
Post a Comment
Read more

Honourable Justice Manmohan Singh Tenure as Chairman of IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board) extended for Another three months

By
  The Supreme Court on September 16, 2020 has extended the tenure of Honourable Justice Manmohan Singh as Chairman of IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board)  for another three months.  Justice Manmohan Singh was appointed on July 2017 for a term of three years.  However as per the rules governing the appointment his term would come to an end on attaining retirement age of 65 years on 22nd September 2019. Since Government has not appointed any Chairman thereafter, on a Petition by International Association for Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) the Supreme Court has extended his term for another year i.e, till 21st September 2020 as the Petitioner claimed that IPAB will be Defunct with his retirement thereby causing hardship several litigants. The Central Government has notified in March 2020 that Justice Singh will continue as the chairman of IPAB up to September 21, 2020, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.  Now with this extension, Ho...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mark used for different class of goods/services would not be detrimental to the purported distinctive character or repute

By
SUPREME COURT in it's Order dated  26 July, 2018 held that use of the mark "NANDHINI" for Restaurant Services and running Hotels is not detrimental to the repute and usage of the mark "NANDHINI" for Milk and Milk Products. VS. In  M/S. Nandhini Deluxe vs M/S. Karnataka Cooperative Milk., l ong legal battle for Trademark Registration of Nandhini Trademark for Restaurant and Hotel business has been successful for M/s. Nandhini Deluxe. The Supreme Court observed that  all the ingredients laid down in  Section 11(2)  of the Act, as explained by the Delhi High Court in Nestle India Ltd., have not been satisfied. We are not persuaded to hold, on the facts of this case, that the appellant has adopted the trade mark to take unfair advantage of the trade mark of the respondent. We also hold that use of ‘NANDHINI’ by appellant in respect of its different goods would not be detrimental to the purported distinctive character or repute of the trade ...
Post a Comment
Read more