Passing off injunction upheld where prior user, confusion and irreparable injury supported concurrent interim relief despite disputed documents.

In a passing off action, the Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136 with concurrent orders granting interim injunction. The courts below were justified in finding a prima facie case of prior user on the basis of the materials then available, even though the authenticity of disputed assignments and related documents could not be finally decided at the interlocutory stage. Prior user remained a material factor, and the findings on likely confusion, loss of reputation and irreparable injury supported the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. Objections based on delay and laches did not justify disturbance of the concurrent discretionary orders, and additional disputed documents first produced in appeal were not reopened.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India with the concurrent orders granting interim injunction in a passing off action, and whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of prior user with balance of convenience in its favour despite objections based on delay, laches and disputed documents.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a passing off claim where neither side had a registered trade mark at the relevant time. The plaintiff's claim rested on prior user of the mark and on assignments said to connect its use with predecessors. At the interlocutory stage, the authenticity and genuineness of the contested documents could not be finally adjudicated, and the courts below were justified in treating them as sufficient to make out a prima facie case. In a passing off action, prior user is a material factor, and the courts below had also found that continued use by the defendants was likely to cause confusion, loss of reputation and irreparable injury. The objections founded on delay and laches were considered but were not accepted as a ground to disturb the concurrent discretionary orders, particularly where both courts had already exercised their discretion on the available materials. The Court also declined to reopen the matter by relying on additional disputed documents produced for the first time in appeal.

Conclusion: The Court held that no case for interference with the grant of interim injunction was made out, and the order protecting the plaintiff was upheld.

---