Dismissed

M/S Matalaxmi Polyspot (India) v. M/S Mahalaxmi Polycot (India)

Rajasthan HC3 Sept 2024CMA/873/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal concerning a trademark dispute in the textile business, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the appellant's appeal. The appellate court rejected the challenge to the interim injunction granted to the respondent under Order 39 CPC, finding no case for interference and noting no contrary factual findings to challenge.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the interim injunction in favour of the respondent remains operative.

M/S Matalaxmi Polyspot (India) Vs M/S Mahalaxmi… — Intellectual Property | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:36895]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 873/2024

¶4

M/s Matalaxmi Polyspot (India), 5, Jay Nagar, Ramdev Road, Pali- Marwad (Raj.) Through Its Proprietor/ Partner/manager.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Mahalaxmi Polycot (India), Plot No. 5, Sumerpur Road, Pali - Marwad (Raj.) Through Its Proprietor/partner/manager.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh with Mr. Tek Chand Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

¶11

Order

¶12

03/09/2024

¶13

AVNEESH JHINGAN, (J):-

¶14

This appeal is filed against the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II granting interim injunction to the respondent.

¶15

The brief facts are that the respondent filed a suit for restraining the appellant from using the trade mark, label and logo. Both the parties are engaged in business of textile. The respondent got registered trademark, logo with picture of Devi Lakshmi having the registration No.A-122729/2018 with the name Mahalaxmi Polycot (India). The appellant got registered trademark with the name Matalaxmi Polyspot (India). It was pleaded by the respondent

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:36895]

[CMA-873/2024]

that the logo and name had similarity of special features, colours and both are being used for textile items and dress materials. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed. The Civil Court after hearing both the parties and perusing the material available on record granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent restraining the appellant from using the trademark, logo and label of respondent.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that till date there is no complaint made by any of the customers of having been mislead by the similarity. The contention is that spelling of Matalaxmi Polyspot and Mahalaxmi Polycot are different.

¶21

The Civil Court by reasoned order has granted an interim injunction and prima facie factual findings have been recorded that the colour of packaging material and photo, designs used in both the labels are similar and without detailed analysis, difference cannot be made out. Further, that the similarity can lead to confusion for the customer cannot be ruled out. The three principles for grant of interim injunction; (a) prima facie case, (b) balance of convenience and (c) irreparable loss were taken into consideration and decided in favour of the respondent.

¶22

Nothing has been brought before this Court to challenge the prima facie factual findings recorded by the Civil Court in the impugned order.

¶23

No case is made out for interference.

¶24

The appeal is dismissed.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:36895]

[CMA-873/2024]

It is clarified that that the observations made in this order shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case by this Court, these are only for the purpose of deciding this appeal against the order granting interim injunction.

¶29

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶30

Chandan/23

M/S Matalaxmi Polyspot (India) v. M/S Mahalaxmi Polycot (India)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Matalaxmi Polyspot (India) v. M/S Mahalaxmi Polycot (India)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Man Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Harkesh S/O Mangi Vs State of Rajasthan

Bimla Bedi W/O Shri Jogendra Singh Bedi Vs Tejpal S/O Shri Dhannalal

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs M/S Ensol Multiclean Equipments Pvt. Limited

Smt. Sunita Saini W/O Satyanarayan Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Meena, S/O. Radhakishan Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan