SC ruling on trademark violation cases

in a ruling having a bearing on trademark violation cases, the supreme court has held that absence of intention to deceive while adopting a name similar to that of an existing firm was no defence against injunction. reversing the orders of a trial court and the gujarat high court which had refused to grant injunction, a bench comprising justice r c lahoti and justice k g balakrishnan said, where there is a probability of confusion in business, an injunction will be granted even though the defendants adopted the name innocently. the law does not permit any one to carry on his business in such a way as would persuade the customers or clients in believing that the goods or services belonging to someone else is or are associated therewith, justice lahoti, writing the judgement for the bench, said. it does not matter whether the latter person does so fraudulently or otherwise, the court said, underlining that honesty and fair play were ought to be the basic policies of the world of business. in the facts of the case, on which the ruling came, a person had started a colour lab and studio in 1982 in ahmedabad in the name of muktjivan colour studio. he alleged that taking advantage of the popularity of the service rendered by his firm, another person having business under the name gokul studio changed the name of his company to muktjivan studio. when the first person approached the trial court seeking injunction against the firm which changed the name, the court had granted the relief. however, when the defendant said that he had started business in the name much before filing of the suit, the trial court vacated the interim stay. the high court upheld the trial court's latter order. allowing the appeal against the high court order, the apex court said when a person adopted or intended to adopt a name in connection with his business or services which already belonged to someone else, it could result in confusion. it also had the possibility of diverting the customers and clients of someone else to himself and thereby resulting in injury, the court said. regarding the role of the court, justice lahoti said, as to how the injunction granted by the court would shape depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. he said, where a defendant has imitated or adopted the plaintiff's distinctive trademark or business name, the order may be an absolute injunction that he would not use or carry on business under that name. the apex court said once a plaintiff made out a case that the defendant was trying to pass off his goods as that of a reputed firm by imitating the firm's name, the practice is generally to grant a prompt ex-parte injunction followed by appointment of local commissioner, if necessary. the apex court bench said the ahmedabad court was fully justified in granting ex-parte injunction to the plaintiff and set aside the order of the high court.

SC ruling on trademark violation cases

IN A ruling having a bearing on trademark violation cases, the Supreme Court has held that absence of intention to deceive while adopting a name similar to that of an existing firm was no defence against injunction.

More from our Partners

Popular Categories

Hot on Web

In Case you missed it

Top Searched Companies

Latest News

Download ET APP

Follow us on

become a member