Rajasthan High Court: In an appeal against the rejection of application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) to restrain the respondents from using the mark pending the final disposal of the suit, a single-judge bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., quashed the impugned the order and restrained the respondents from using the trademark “Swastik” and its label on their products until the final disposal of the suit.
In the instant matter, the appellant, Rajani Products filed a suit under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, against the respondents, Bhagwan Das Harwani and Karishma Trading Corporation. The dispute arose over the use of the word “Swastik” and its associated label on the respondents’ products. The appellant claimed that they had been using the registered trademark “Swastik” since 1983 for their edible oil business. The appellant sought an interim injunction to restrain the respondents from using the mark pending the final disposal of the suit, however, the same was rejected by Additional District Judge vide order dated 06-02-2020. The appellant then filed the present appeal challenging the impugned rejection.
The appellant alleged that the respondents were using an identical and deceptively similar mark under the name “Shree Parwati Swastik,” is visually, phonetically, and structurally identical, creating consumer confusion, constituting infringement and caused significant business losses. It was contended that the trial court’s rejection of the interim injunction was erroneous as it failed to recognize the issuance of prior injunction in an identical matter where it had granted an injunction restraining the use of “Swastik.”
The Court emphasised that in cases of blatant intellectual property rights violations, prompt injunctions are necessary to protect not only the aggrieved party but also the public interest.
“In the matters of blatant violation of Intellectual Property Rights, a prompt order of injunction must be granted to protect not only the interest of the person aggrieved but also that of the public at large.”
The Court noted that the respondents’ trademark “Shree Parwati Swastik” bore a close resemblance to the appellant’s registered mark, including the use of the same symbol and label. The Court found that prima facie, the respondents’ use of the mark constituted an infringement of the appellant’s trademark rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court observed that the same trial court had previously granted an injunction in an identical case involving Shanker Oil Mill, and there was no reason to take a different stance in the present matter.
The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned order dated 06-02-2020. The Court restrained the respondents from using the trademark “Swastik” and its label on their products until the final disposal of the suit. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the interim relief and would not influence the trial court’s decision on the merits of the case. The Court directed the trial court to decide the main suit expeditiously, based on the evidence led by both parties.
[Rajani Products v. Bhagwan Das Harwani, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2198/2020, Decided on 19-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Shruvan Kumar Bansal for Mr. Kapil Gupta and Mr. R.S. Sinsinwar, Counsel for the Appellant
Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999 HERE
