Prior use controls interim trademark relief when rival registered proprietors contest use of a character merchandising mark.

In a trademark dispute over the NODDY mark used for character merchandising, the Delhi HC considered whether interim injunction should restrain the defendants' use despite rival registrations and claims of prior use. The plaintiff showed reputation and sales, but failed to prove earlier commercial exploitation in India or objective evidence of Indian user before the defendants' use and registration. The defendants relied on a registered mark and materials indicating use from at least 1995. At the interlocutory stage, prior use was the decisive consideration, and dilution relief against a registered proprietor was not established. The injunction application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark NODDY, in light of the parties' respective trademark registrations and rival claims of prior use.

Analysis: The dispute concerned a fictional character mark used for character merchandising. The plaintiff showed substantial reputation and sales, but did not establish prior use in India before the defendants' use and registration. The defendants had a registered mark and materials indicating user from at least 1995, whereas the plaintiff's evidence of Indian user was much later. In a contest between registered proprietors, the decisive consideration at the interlocutory stage was prior use, and the plaintiff failed to place objective evidence showing earlier commercial exploitation in India. On the materials before the Court, dilution relief against a registered proprietor was not made out, and the balance of evidence did not justify restraining the defendants at that stage.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to interim injunctive relief, and the application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a trademark dispute between competing registered proprietors, interim relief depends substantially on proof of prior use and supporting objective evidence of commercial reputation and exploitation; absent such proof, a registered proprietor will not ordinarily be restrained at the interlocutory stage.

---