Second Appeal against detention in civil prison for violating an injunction order in a trademark infringement suit. The High Court found willful disobedience based on a commission report and dismissed the appeal allowing the detention.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/15TH POUSHA, 1937
FAO.No. 2 of 2016
(AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE I, THALASSERY DATED 21.12.2015 IN I.A.NO.2384/2015 IN O.S.NO.1/2015)
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
U.C.SURENDRANATH, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.U.NARAYANAN (LATE), RESIDING AT KARINTHA VEEDU KOTTAYAMPOIL(P.O), PATHAYAKKUNNU(VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT PIN-670 691 (PIN)
BY ADVS.SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH (SR.)
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
MAMABALLY'S BAKERY HARBOUR CITY HOSPITAL, THALASSERRY REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR M.M.PRAKASH S/O.MAMBALLY NARAYANAN, AGED 50 YEARS RESIDING AT RATNA NIVAS, CHETTAMCOONU(P.O) KANNUR DISTRICT.
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
F.A.O.No.2 OF 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
This appeal is filed by the respondent in I.A.No.2384/15 in O.S.No.1/15 on the file of the Additional District Judge-I, Thalassery. By
the order impugned, the court below has found that the appellant is guilty of violation of the order of injunction and accordingly ordered that he be detained in civil prison for a period of one week. It is aggrieved by this order, the appeal is filed.
F.A.O.No.2 OF 2016 : 2 :
also for restraining the appellant from wrongfully selling the product or otherwise dealing with any goods similar to the goods of the respondent by using the trade mark Mambally's Bakery or otherwise passing off goods under that trade mark or other marks deceptively similar to that trade mark. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 2191/15 for an order of temporary injunction. On considering the application, the court below passed an ex parte order of temporary injunction on 4.11.2015, restraining the appellant from passing off goods or offering for sale or otherwise dealing in any goods similar to the goods of the respondent under the respondent's trade mark Mambally's Bakery or any other trade mark deceptively identical or similar to the respondent's trade mark in respect of bakery products, sweets, cakes, confectioneries, etc.
F.A.O.No.2 OF 2016 : 3 :
indicated the continued disobedience of the order dated 4.11.2015. The appellant though filed his objection to the I.A., did not file any objection to the Commission Report. The parties were heard and it was on that basis the impugned order was passed, finding that the appellant had violated the order of injunction passed by the trial court. It was accordingly that the court below held that the appellant is liable to be detained in civil prison ordered that he be detained for a period of one week.
F.A.O.No.2 OF 2016 : 4 :
violation of the order dated 4.11.2015. The appellant did not file any objection to the Commission Report. Even the objection filed to the I.A., would show that the appellant was guilty of violation of the court order. Further, the appellant did not choose to adduce any evidence before the court below to substantiate his contention that there was no willful disobedience of the order dated 4.11.2015. In the light of the above and the sufficient materials that were available before the court below, the conclusion that there was willful violation of the order dated 4.11.2015 was inevitable. There is absolutely no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the court below.
Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
SD/-
A.HARIPRASAD
JUDGE
jes
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant committed willful disobedience of the injunction order by continuing to sell similar goods.
Whether the detention of the appellant in civil prison for violation of the injunction order was illegal.
U.C. SURENDRANATH
MAMABALLY'S BAKERY HARBOUR CITY HOSPITAL
ANTONY DOMINIC
A.HARIPRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
