The trial court restrained a company run by one member of the 'Jain family' from using the trademark ‘Jain Shikanji’ for a form of masala-based lemon drink, while recognising the rights claimed by another member of the same family.
Satish Kumar Jain claimed that his father the late Parmatma Sharan Jain opened a Shikanji shop under the name and style of Jain Shikanji on Delhi-Meerut Road, Modinagar, more than five decades ago and that the trademark ‘Jain Shikanji’ became distinctive of the late Parmatma Sharan Jain and his sons, including Satish Kumar Jain, gained immense popularity and goodwill.
The Delhi High Court Wednesday dismissed a plea against a trial court’s interim order which restrained a company run by one member of the ‘Jain family’ from using the trademark ‘Jain Shikanji’ for a form of a lemon-based drink laced with masala, while recognising the rights claimed by another member of the same family over the trademark.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee were hearing an appeal moved by Jain Shikanji Private Limited, challenging a November 2022 interim order of the trial court restraining them from selling, offering to sell, advertise or promote any product under the trademark ‘Jain Shikanji/ Jain Shikanji Restaurant’ or any other trademark “deceptively similar” to the trademark used by Satish Kumar Jain’s ‘Jain Shikanji’ for their product.
Dismissing the appeal the High Court in its March 1 verdict held, “Discernment of an appeal at the appellate stage in view of the settled position of law…of the CPC leads us to conclude that the appellant has been unable to make out a case for interference by this Court. Hence, taking into consideration the overall factual and legal aspects involved herein and the overall conduct of appellant, this court finds no merit in the present appeal”.
The HC said that the words ‘Jain’ and ‘Shikanji’ when used separately are commonly used words but when used as a single word it is “distinctive and unique capable of being a mark in itself”.
The court also observed that the appellant had made “tall claims” that ‘Jain Shikanji’ is a family mark as the promoter-director of appellant has derived their rights from the originator of the said trademark – his forefathers and also his own parents. However no documents on this point where produced before the trial court, it said.
The HC said that at the “end of the day what has been appealed is an interim order” of the trial court and not a final order and unless there is some “arbitrariness, perversity or capriciousness” in the interim order the scope of interference by appellate forum is “extremely minimal”.
The High Court further said that it has a very limited role to play while exercising jurisdiction while deciding on an appeal from an interim order of a trial court. (Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 2 March 2023)
No comments:
Post a Comment