Ramachandran Nair, J.
This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the common order in I.A.No.5032 of 2012 and I.A.No.5955 of 2012 in O.S.No.26 of 2012 on the file of the Vth Additional District Court, Ernakulam.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Innocent Francis Papali and the learned counsel for the respondent Sri Raman Kartha. By the impugned order, the court below has restrained the appellant from using and continuing to use the trade mark “Assam Apple Valley” for his products till the disposal of the suit. I.A.No.5955 of 2012 filed by the appellant to vacate the injunction order was dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the various aspects and submitted that there is a valid assignment of trade mark in his favour and therefore it was not proper on the part of the court below to grant the injunction, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the assignment itself is in dispute and in the light of the legal position under Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the conclusions arrived at by the court below are justified.
4. It appears that both sides have produced various documents before the court below and the learned Judge has arrived at his conclusion by going into various legal aspects. It was found that the respondent has got a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the respondent.
5. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to go into the merits of the materials produced, at this stage, it will not be proper for this Court to evaluate the evidence and to enter into a conclusion on merits since that will prejudice the contentions of the parties. The impugned order was passed on 12.11.2012. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent requires an expeditious disposal on merits and therefore the trial of the suit itself may be expedited. It is submitted that since the records have been sent to this Court, the trial could not be proceeded.
6. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant will have to file a written statement and he will file the same within three weeks. By maintaining the impugned order we dispose of the appeal. Even though the appeal was filed as early as on 01.12.2012, no stay has been ordered by this Court and therefore the impugned order was continuing in force also.
7. The Additional District Court, Ernakulam, where the suit is pending, will expedite the trial and the parties will co- operate with the trial of the suit and the matter will be disposed of within a period of six months.
8. It is pointed out that a connected matter is pending before a different court, ie. O.S.No.15 of 2014 before the VIIth District Court. It is also pointed out that the parties are moving for a joint trial of the matter. It is up to the Court concerned to pass appropriate orders in the matter and we are not proposing to issue any direction in this regard. It is made clear that the Court below will dispose of the case untrammeled by the observations prima facie made in the impugned order. No costs.
Sd/-
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) rtr/ Sd/-
(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) /true copy/ P.S to Judge