No Interim Relief Without Diligence; Bombay High Court Dismisses ‘Mahalaxmi’ Trademark Appeal

No Interim Relief Without Diligence; Bombay High Court Dismisses ‘Mahalaxmi’ Trademark Appeal

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has declined to interfere with a trial court’s refusal to grant interim relief in a trademark and passing-off dispute involving the mark “Mahalaxmi” used for masala products. The Court held that the appellant’s own conduct, marked by prolonged delays and procedural lapses, disentitled it from discretionary interim protection.

Factual Background

Kailash Masala Industries is engaged in the manufacture and sale of masala products and claimed rights over the trademark “Mahalaxmi.” Furthermore, alleging infringement and passing off, it instituted a civil suit against Organic Khandeshi Food Products which was marketing masala products under the same mark.

Kailash Masala asserted that the respondent’s use of “Mahalaxmi” was deceptively similar and likely to mislead consumers, thereby harming its goodwill and reputation.

Procedural Background

The appellant filed a civil suit seeking a perpetual injunction and also moved an application for interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial court rejected the prayer for interim injunction.

Aggrieved, Kailash Masala preferred an appeal before the Bombay High Court, contending that the trial court’s order was cryptic and failed to undertake any meaningful comparison of the rival marks.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing interim relief without adequately comparing the rival trademarks.

2. Whether Kailash Masala had made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury warranting interim protection.

3. Whether the appellant’s conduct was relevant in deciding an appeal against refusal of interim injunction.

Contentions of the Parties

The appellant argued that the trial court’s order was unsustainable as it did not analyse deceptive similarity or apply settled principles governing trademark infringement and passing off. It sought a remand of the matter for fresh consideration.

The respondent opposed the appeal, contending that the suit had remained stagnant for nearly four years due to the appellant’s own defaults. It also pointed out that Kailash Masala’s trademark registration application had been rejected in January 2024 after the appellant failed to pursue it despite repeated opportunities.

Reasoning and Analysis

The High Court emphasised that interim injunctions are discretionary remedies and that the conduct of the parties is a relevant consideration. Moreover, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. v. KS Infraspace LLP, the Court reiterated that litigants who delay proceedings or act negligently cannot seek equitable relief.

In fact, the Court noted that the civil suit had not progressed for nearly four years despite there being no stay. It further recorded that Kailash Masala had failed to place sufficient material on record to enable even a prima facie comparison of the rival marks.

A single bench of Justice Shailesh P Brahme observed that orders under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC are meant to aid expeditious resolution of disputes and cannot be used to keep the “sword of Damocles” hanging over the defendant indefinitely. Given the appellant’s objectionable conduct and lack of diligence, no case was made out for remand or interference.

The High Court also agreed with the trial court that the appellant had failed to satisfy the threefold test for interim relief: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.

Decision

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s refusal to grant interim relief. The appeal was dismissed with costs of ₹10,000, and both parties were directed to cooperate with the trial court for expeditious disposal of the suit. The Court clarified that its observations were only prima facie and would not influence the final adjudication.

In this case the petitioner was represented by Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. Bajaj Anil S, Advocate.