Since we are confronted with the legal propriety of a temporary
injunction, we must abjure from going into minute details and refrain from
discussing the case threadbare, in order to preclude rendering the suit itself an
exercise in futility and the decision therein a foregone conclusion. All that we
would say in the present Appeal is that since the Plaintiff-Respondents have
alleged, and have prima facie supported with proof, that they had already been
using their trademark well before the attempted user of an identical or closely
similar trademark by the Defendant-Appellant, the former would be entitled to a
temporary injunction, in light of the abovementioned ‘first in the market’ test.
We find that the Plaintiff-Respondents have made out a prima facie case. The
two other factors in an interim injunction, namely the balance of convenience
and an irreparable loss, are both in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondents, given
the potential loss of goodwill and business they could suffer should an
injunction be denied. The Defendant-Appellant has been injuncted from using
the mark ROFOL since 2005, after having launched products bearing the mark
only in the previous year, so the balance of convenience is in favour of allowing
the injunction to continue.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1018 OF 2006
Neon Laboratories Ltd. ... Appellant
Versus
Medical Technologies Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
Dated;October 5, 2015.
Citation;(2016)2 SCC 672
injunction, we must abjure from going into minute details and refrain from
discussing the case threadbare, in order to preclude rendering the suit itself an
exercise in futility and the decision therein a foregone conclusion. All that we
would say in the present Appeal is that since the Plaintiff-Respondents have
alleged, and have prima facie supported with proof, that they had already been
using their trademark well before the attempted user of an identical or closely
similar trademark by the Defendant-Appellant, the former would be entitled to a
temporary injunction, in light of the abovementioned ‘first in the market’ test.
We find that the Plaintiff-Respondents have made out a prima facie case. The
two other factors in an interim injunction, namely the balance of convenience
and an irreparable loss, are both in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondents, given
the potential loss of goodwill and business they could suffer should an
injunction be denied. The Defendant-Appellant has been injuncted from using
the mark ROFOL since 2005, after having launched products bearing the mark
only in the previous year, so the balance of convenience is in favour of allowing
the injunction to continue.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1018 OF 2006
Neon Laboratories Ltd. ... Appellant
Versus
Medical Technologies Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
Dated;October 5, 2015.
Citation;(2016)2 SCC 672
