Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Order 39 Rules 1 & 2
Trade mark 'Double Deer' registered in respect to Rice and renewed from time to time with label showing two deer facing each other and with a Flag between them. Defendant adopted trade mark Deer with the devise of a single Deer .When the plaintiff will export their products, the buyers in different countries, as in this country, are likely to be confused by similar/deceptively similar trade marks . Injunction granted.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 39 Rules 1 & 2
Registered Trade mark FORD relating to motor vehicle repair and maintenance service.Trade name Ford Service Centre is displayed by the defendant at its filling station . Similarity in the goods i.e., petrol and diesel being sold by the defendant .Defendant restrained from using the trademark
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 39 Rules 1 & 2
Concealment and deliberate misstatement of material facts. Dispute as to use of the mark of acronym IILM.Large number of educational institutions had been established either by the father of the warring families or his two sons For several years both the brothers (warring partys) were enjoying the use, jointly and/or severally, of the mark/name IILM with or without prefixes . Interim injunction cannot be granted.

Held It needs to be emphasised that the party who approaches the Court for discretionary relief, nay any relief, should candidly and forthrightly narrate all material facts in the Plaint and or the application for injunction. While this may not be an imperative in their dealings and actions prior or posterior to the filing of the Us, it is an implacable and undilutable necessity in litigation. The Court, therefore, need not detain itself on shortcomings or subterfuges adopted by the parties in their actions unless these actions leave no room for debate that a genuine doubt could have bet" created in the mind of the concerned litigant. [Para 4]

The parties are not entitled to seek an adjudication of the partition of their family in an action for passing off. This would be germane only to CS(OS)2941'2006. Therefore, we need not look into the two Family Settlements dated 7.2.2000 and 19.3.2000 which are hotly contested. It is for this reason that we have resolutely declined to read the two Family Arrangements despite it being insisted upon by Mr. Lai, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. We refrain from doing so for the reason that it is not the position of the Defendant that the terms of these Family Arrangements are acceptable to him. Indeed, in the course of hearings before us Mr. Jaitley, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, had immediately responded to Mr. Lals repeated reference to the Family Arrangements by stating that the Plaintiff is ready and willing to completely implement its terms. On our query, Mr. Lal has clarified that the Defendant harbours the grievance that the Family Arrangements did not fairly and equitably divide the assets of the Rai Family. We cannot but condemn the approbation and reprobation on the part of the Defendant. This, however, does not detract from the position that IILM was commonly used by all the members of the Rai Family and hence at the present stage no single member is entitled to its exclusive use, until and unless an agreement to this effect has been inked and adhered to by all the necessary parties. For these reasons we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that a prima facie case does not exist in favour of the Plaintiff. [Para 7]

These precedents proscribe interference in Appeal except where the discretion has been exercised in a perverse manner, that is, which no reasonable man would adopt. The impugned Order does not manifest any aberration of these pervasive proportions. [Para 11]