THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.593 of 2014 Dated: 08.08.2014 Between:
M/s. Laxmi Engineers .. Appellant and Mr. S. Anand Kumar .. Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Ashok Ram Kumar Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. P. Anil Mukherji JUDGMENT:
This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of order dated 12.03.2014 in I.A.No.707 of 2013 in O.S.No.61 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.
The appellant has filed O.S.No.61 of 2013 for permanent injunction restraining the respondent and persons claiming through him from issuing threats of initiating legal proceedings or in any manner interfering with the appellant’s use of the names “MOTEX” or “MOTEX-Z” to its products and to award damages in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondent. Along with the suit, the appellant filed I.A.No.707 of 2013 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with its business including sale of its products using the names “MOTEX” or “MOTEX-Z”, pending disposal of the suit. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit resisting the said application. The lower Court dismissed the application by the order under appeal.
The respondent though not a registered trademark holder, he has been using the brand “MOTEX” since 1985, while the appellant has been using the name “MOTEX” or “MOTEX-Z” for the last five or six years. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly observed that as a prior user, the respondent is entitled to warn the appellant against using the brand name by which it is marketing its products. Since the suit is pending before the lower Court, I refrain from rendering conclusive findings at this stage.
Having carefully considered the pleadings of the parties and the reasons given by the lower Court, I am of the opinion that the appellant has failed to make out any case for interference with the order passed by the lower Court.
The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil miscellaneous appeal, C.M.A.M.P.No.869 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 8th August, 2014 IBL