TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness of jewellery - looking at the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the defendants could not have been restrained from doing their busines. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order granting interim relief in favour of the plaintiff - decided in favour of Applicant. - Civil Appeal No. 7191 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9942 of 2013) - - - Dated:- 4-8-2014 - Anil R. Dave And Vikramajit Sen,JJ. JUDGMENT Anil R. Dave, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Being aggrieved by an interim order passed in a civil suit, the appellants-original defendants have approached this Court by way of this appeal. 3. The matter has arisen under the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, which are dealing in jewellery in different names and styles. 7. It had been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that they could not have been restrained from doing their business in the name and style of NEENA AND RAVI RAKYAN for the reason that the partners in the said firm are Smt. Neena Rakyan and Shri Ravi Rakyan and they cannot be restrained from doing their business in their own name. The learned counsel had referred to some of the judgments and had mainly relied upon Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It had been further submitted that the interim order whereby they have been restrained from doing their business is absolutely unjust and improper in view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir business in their own name and their bona fides have not been disputed. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendants are related to each other and practically all the family members are in the business of jewellery. 11. We have perused the hoardings of the shops where they are doing the business and upon perusal of the hoardings we do not find any similarity between them. 12. In our opinion, looking at the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the defendants could not have been restrained from doing their busines. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order granting interim relief in favour of the plaintiff and the appeal is allowed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
