Prior user prevails in passing off, with registration irrelevant absent actual use, and interim injunction may follow.

In a passing off action, prior use and the goodwill attached to the mark are determinative, and mere registration or entry on the register is not enough unless actual user is shown. The analysis states that priority of adoption and use prevails over priority of registration, so the court must examine whether the plaintiff has established prior user in relation to the goods. On interim relief, admitted prior use supported a prima facie proprietary right, the balance of convenience favoured the prior user, and the risk of confusion and continuing use was treated as irreparable injury warranting injunction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, in an action for passing off, prior registration of a trade mark or its presence on the register is relevant when the plaintiff asserts prior user; (ii) whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury for interim injunction.

Issue (i): Whether, in an action for passing off, prior registration of a trade mark or its presence on the register is relevant when the plaintiff asserts prior user.

Analysis: In a passing off action, the decisive factor is user and the goodwill attached to the mark, not registration. The statutory scheme preserves the right of action for passing off notwithstanding the absence of registration, and the existence of entries in the register does not by itself prove user. Priority in adoption and use is superior to priority in registration, and the court must focus on whether the plaintiff has established prior user of the mark in relation to the goods.

Conclusion: Prior registration or mere entry in the register was held irrelevant to the passing off claim, and prior user remained the governing consideration.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury for interim injunction.

Analysis: The plaintiff's admitted prior use of the mark on voiles established a prima facie proprietary right. The plea that the mark was common to the trade was not supported by evidence of actual use by others, and the court distinguished between a mark being common on the register and common to the trade. Since goodwill and proprietary interest in a passing off action deserve protection, the balance of convenience lay with the prior user. The likelihood of confusion and the possibility of continued use hardening into concurrent user were treated as sufficient irreparable injury to justify restraint.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was held entitled to interim protection, and the injunction was granted against the respondents in relation to voiles.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order refusing interim relief was set aside, and temporary injunctive relief was granted to protect the plaintiff's prior user rights in the mark.

Ratio Decidendi: In a passing off action, prior user and the associated goodwill are determinative, while registration or mere presence in the register is irrelevant unless actual user is shown; where prior user, likelihood of confusion, and risk of irreparable injury are established, interim injunction may be granted.

---