Passing off injunction refused where the mark was publici juris, similarity was not deceptive, and proper service was not disclosed.

A plaintiff seeking interim relief in a passing off dispute must disclose the defendant's correct address for service and approach the court with clean hands; where the pleaded address was only that of a consignee agent and not the corporate defendant's registered office, the jurisdictional and service foundation failed and interim relief was refused. On the merits, the mark PIO was treated as publici juris because it described the active ingredient used commonly in similar pharmaceutical products, and the comparison with PIOZ did not establish deceptive similarity. The equitable injunction claim also failed because the plaintiff had suppressed the proper address, weakening its entitlement to discretionary relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit and interim injunction application were maintainable on the basis of the Chennai address and the leave to sue already obtained, including the question of proper service on the corporate defendant; (ii) Whether the applicant established a prima facie case for injunction in a passing off dispute involving the marks PIO and PIOZ, having regard to publici juris, deceptive similarity, and the applicant's conduct.

Issue (i): Whether the suit and interim injunction application were maintainable on the basis of the Chennai address and the leave to sue already obtained, including the question of proper service on the corporate defendant.

Analysis: The jurisdictional foundation was defective because the address pleaded as the first respondent's office was in truth the address of its consignee agent and not the registered office or a proper address for service on the corporation. The provisions governing suits on the Original Side, the place of suing, and service on corporations required the plaintiff to disclose a correct and bona fide address. The Court found that the plaintiff knew, or ought to have known, the registered address of the company and nevertheless chose a different address. This defect affected the entitlement to interim relief and showed a lack of bona fides. The objection based on the Companies Act was rejected, but the general requirement of proper service and honest disclosure remained controlling.

Conclusion: The application failed on the jurisdiction and service aspect, and no interim relief could be granted against the first respondent without proper leave and proper pleading of its address.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant established a prima facie case for injunction in a passing off dispute involving the marks PIO and PIOZ, having regard to publici juris, deceptive similarity, and the applicant's conduct.

Analysis: The words used in the respondent's mark were found to be descriptive of the active ingredient and commonly used in the market for similar pharmaceutical preparations. The Court compared the marks and the products, noted that both medicines were for diabetes, both were sold in the same strengths, and both contained the same ingredient. On that basis, the mark PIO was treated as publici juris and not capable of exclusive appropriation by the applicant. The Court also held that the marks were not identical and that the applicant's own conduct in suppressing the correct address undermined the claim for an equitable remedy. Although medicinal products require special caution because of the public interest involved, the facts here did not justify an injunction.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to injunction because the mark was publici juris, the marks were not deceptively similar, and the applicant had not approached the Court with clean hands.

Final Conclusion: The application for interim injunction was rejected, and the connected request for criminal action was also declined, leaving the respondent free from the restraint sought by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaintiff seeking equitable relief in a passing off action must show bona fide conduct and a protectable mark; where the disputed word is publici juris, the marks are not deceptively similar, and the plaintiff suppresses or misstates the defendant's proper address for service, interim injunction will be refused.

---