TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : The Appellants filed a suit for passing off and for infringement of Copyright. In the suit an application for interim injunction under the provision of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. A learned Single Judge of the High Court in Order dated 31st July, 2001 noted the following facts: (i) The defendant admittedly worked with the plaintiff prior to launching ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce 1992; (vii) The defendant's statement in the application made to the Trade Mark Registry on 30.5.1996 for registration of trade mark 'Magic Laxman Rekha' claiming continuous user since 1992. 3. In view of these facts, the learned Single Judge granted an interim injunction preventing the Respondents, their servants, agents, distributors, stockists or any other person acting o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngement either of Trade Mark or of Copyright normally an injunction must follow. Mere delay in bringing action is not sufficient to defeat grant of injunction in such cases. The grant of injunction also becomes necessary if it prima facie appears that the adoption of the Mark was itself dishonest. 6. In this case it is an admitted position that the Respondents used to work with the Appellants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew on the facts extracted by the learned Single Judge this was a fit case where an interim injunction should have been granted and should have been continued. In our view the Division Bench was entirely wrong in vacating that injunction merely on the ground of delay and laches. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. It is clarified that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
