The Madras High Court has held that summary judgment under Order XIII-A Rule 3 CPC in a commercial dispute is justified where there is no compelling reason to record oral evidence and the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim. In the present case, since the plaintiff’s mark related to milk and dairy products under Class 29, while the defendants were registered proprietors of “PATANJALI AAROGYA” for biscuits under Class 30, and Sections 12 and 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act contemplate coexistence of similar marks in such circumstances, the suit for infringement and passing off did not warrant a full trial.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi noted that the plaintiff’s mark “AROKYA” was associated with milk and milk products, whereas the defendants used “PATANJALI AAROGYA” for biscuits, and the goods fell in different classes, namely Class 29 and Class 30 respectively. The Bench also recorded that the defendants’ mark carried the prefix “Patanjali” and that the plaintiff’s opposition to the defendants’ registration was already pending before the Trade Marks Registry.
The Bench observed that Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act gives discretion to the Registrar to permit registration by more than one proprietor of identical or similar marks in cases of honest concurrent use, and Section 28(3) permits coexistence of two or more owners of identical or nearly similar trademarks. On that basis, the Bench held that the plaintiff’s prospect of success was remote even if its averments were taken as proved in toto.
The Bench further observed that no compelling reason existed for recording oral evidence because the material facts regarding the plaintiff’s proprietorship of “AROKYA” and the defendants’ use of “PATANJALI AAROGYA” were not seriously disputed. It accepted the reasoning that the products were distinct and that the plaintiff could not claim monopoly over goods which it was not producing.
Briefly, the appellant had filed a suit for infringement and passing off alleging that the respondents were using the mark “PATANJALI AAROGYA” for biscuits, which allegedly infringed its registered trademark “AROKYA” used for milk and dairy products since 1994. The plaintiff asserted that “AROKYA” had acquired goodwill, reputation, and distinctiveness, and that it had obtained registrations across several classes, while also opposing the defendants’ trademark applications before the Trade Marks Registry.
The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against infringement and passing off, delivery up of offending materials, rendition of accounts, and costs. Pending suit, an interim injunction was initially granted on February 28, 2019. Thereafter, the defendants filed applications to vacate the injunction and for summary judgment dismissing the suit, contending that “AAROGYA” is a Sanskrit word meaning overall well-being, that they were registered proprietors of “PATANJALI AAROGYA” in Class 30, and that the plaintiff had no registration in Class 30 for biscuits.
The Single Judge first vacated the interim injunction and declined summary judgment, but the Division Bench remitted the summary judgment application back for fresh consideration on the ground that it had been rejected without adequate reasons. Upon remand, the single Judge allowed the summary judgment application under Order XIII-A Rule 3 CPC and dismissed the suit with costs.
Appearances:
Advocates N. Surya Senthil and Shubham M. George, for the Appellant
Advocate P. Giridharan, for the Respondent
