Rajasthan High Court: Court Should Grant Prompt Order Of Injunction In Matters Of IPR Violation To Protect Interest Of Aggrieved Person & Public At Large

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that Courts should be prompt in granting order of injunction in matters of violation of Intellectual Property Violation rights in the interest of not only the aggrieved person but also public at large.

The Court was considering an Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the order of the Additional District Judge by which the Application filed by the Petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was rejected.

The single bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, "It is the settled principle of law that 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 Appellant was represented by Advocate Shruvan Kumar Bansal.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a suit under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents restraining them to use the word “Swastik” and its label upon their products. It was submitted that along with suit, an Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was submitted for passing interim orders till disposal of the suit, restraining the Defendant-Respondent from using the word “Swastik” and its label which was rejected.

It was further submitted that under the similar circumstances, another Suit was filed by the Petitioner against one proprietary firm-Shanker Oil Mill, who were also using the same trade mark and label for which the trade mark certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioner. It was contended that the Court, however allowed the application for interim-injunction in this case which had identical issue. It was thus the argument that the controversy involved in both the matters was similar and identical, and therefore once an interim order was passed in identical matters then it was enjoined upon the Trial Court to take the similar view and pass the same order in favour of the Petitioner, till final disposal of the suit.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset pointed out that the record indicates that the impugned trade mark of the Respondent-Company is visually, phonetically, structurally and deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s registered trade mark with the similar symbol for which the Petitioner has secured trade mark registration certificate and has been using the same since long.

"Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned artistic work by the respondents are a reproduction of the petitioners artistic work and/or substantial parts thereof, and the added matters on the respondent’s labels do not make the impugned labels distinctive or dissimilar to the petitioner’s labels. Hence, the respondent’s use of the impugned trade mark and labels amounts to infringement of the petitioner’s copyright and registered trade mark," the Court observed.

The Appeal was accordingly disposed off.

Cause Title: Rajani Products, through its Partner Kamal Rajani vs. Bhagwan Das Harwani (2025:RJ-JP:12399)

Appearances:

Appellants- Advocate Shruvan Kumar Bansal, Advocate Kapil Gupta, Advocate R.S. Sinsinwar

Click here to read/ download Order