A commercial court in Surat has refused to grant interim injunctive relief to Ekdant Multispeciality Dental Care Clinic in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit against another dental practice operating under the name “Ekdant Dental Care.” The plaintiff had sought to restrain the defendant from using the mark “EKDANT,” alleging infringement of its registered trademark and misappropriation of the goodwill associated with the name.
The plaintiff claimed that it had been using the mark “Ekdant” since 2015 and held a registered trademark for “Ekdant Multispeciality Dental Care Clinic.” It contended that the defendant had deliberately adopted a deceptively similar mark for identical dental services in Surat, thereby causing confusion among patients and encashing the reputation built by the plaintiff over the years.
Opposing the application, the defendant argued that the plaintiff did not possess a standalone registration over the word “Ekdant” and that its registration related to a composite mark. The defendant relied on the anti-dissection principle, contending that trademark rights must be assessed over the mark as a whole rather than by isolating a single component. It was further submitted that “Ekdant” is a commonly used expression associated with Lord Ganesha and cannot be monopolised by one entity.
After examining the rival contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701, which reiterates that composite marks must ordinarily be compared as a whole and that common or descriptive elements cannot be granted exclusive protection unless distinctiveness is established.
The Court framed three issues relating to the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Answering all three against the plaintiff, it held that the requirements for grant of temporary injunction had not been satisfied. The Court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to interim protection at this stage of the proceedings.
Accordingly, the application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected, allowing the defendant to continue using the impugned mark pending adjudication of the suit.
