Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on the materials then available, the plaintiffs were entitled to an interim injunction restraining use of the trade mark, copyright material and design, and whether the defences of acquiescence and honest and concurrent user justified to interlocutory relief.
Analysis: The plaintiffs had established, at least prima facie, ownership and infringement in relation to the copyright in the trade literature, the registered trade mark and the design registration. The defence of honest and concurrent user under the trade mark law could not be treated as a defence to copyright infringement, and the plea of acquiescence required more than mere delay or silence. On the material available, there was no satisfactory proof that the first defendant had been manufacturing the impugned mixies for a substantial period with the plaintiffs' knowing consent so as to create a bar to interim relief. In an application for temporary injunction, where infringement is shown and the rival defence is not made out on the present record, the appropriate course is to preserve the status quo and protect the asserted legal rights pending trial.
Conclusion: The refusal of interim injunction could not be sustained; the plaintiffs were entitled to interlocutory protection pending disposal of the suits.