Transborder reputation supports interim injunction where a deceptively similar trade name, logo and get-up create consumer confusion.

The Court held that transborder reputation can support interim protection in passing off and infringement matters where publicity and awareness extend a mark beyond the territory of actual trade. It found that the defendants' almost identical name, logo and stylised get-up created a likelihood of deception on overall impression, and that the absence of Indian business activity or registration did not defeat relief where consumers could still assume an association with the plaintiff's worldwide chain. Applying the principles for discretionary interim relief, the Court found a stronger prima facie case, balance of convenience and risk of irreparable injury, and restrained use of the impugned trade mark, logo and trading style.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for interim injunctive relief on the basis of transborder reputation, passing off, and infringement arising from the defendants' use of a deceptively similar trade name, logo, and get-up.

Analysis: The plaintiff showed substantial international reputation, advertising, and foreign registrations, and the Court held that reputation in a mark can extend beyond the territory of actual business through publicity and awareness. The defendants' adoption of an almost identical name, logo, and stylised presentation was found to create a likelihood of deception and confusion on overall impression, not by minute comparison. The Court further held that absence of business activity or registration in India did not by itself defeat interim protection where the public could be misled into believing an association with a worldwide chain. Applying the principles governing discretionary interim relief, the Court found that the plaintiff had established a stronger prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable injury.

Conclusion: Interim injunction was warranted in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendants were restrained from using the impugned trade mark, logo, and deceptively similar trading style.

---