Trademark appeal dismissed for 'KRISHNA' use in 'Ghee' sales - unique style vs. deity name.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal seeking an interim injunction on trademark infringement related to the use of the word "KRISHNA" in selling "Ghee." The court allowed the defendant to continue sales using the label "PARUL'S LORD KRISHNA" alongside "KRISHNA" to prevent confusion. It emphasized that the appellant's registration was for the unique style, not the word itself, and highlighted the importance of not monopolizing a deity's name, especially in specific goods like milk and butter. The judgment stressed that the observations were provisional and subject to final trial proceedings, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues involved:
Interim injunction on trademark infringement, secondary distinctiveness of trademark, monopoly of deity's name in trademark, relevance of trademark registration in infringement case.

Interim Injunction:
The appellant sought an interim injunction against the defendant from selling "Ghee" using the trademark "KRISHNA." The court restrained the defendant from using "KRISHNA" alone but allowed the sale with the label "PARUL'S LORD KRISHNA" with equal prominence to avoid confusion.

Secondary Distinctiveness:
The appellant claimed exclusive rights to the word "KRISHNA" due to its unique style and association with dairy products. The court noted that several manufacturers used "KRISHNA" in their trademarks, questioning the appellant's claim of distinctiveness.

Monopoly of Deity's Name:
The defendant argued that "KRISHNA" is a common word associated with a Hindu deity, challenging the appellant's monopoly claim. The court held that a deity's name should not be monopolized, especially when associated with specific goods like milk and butter.

Trademark Registration:
The court clarified that the appellant's registration was for the unique style of "KRISHNA," not the word itself. The registration did not grant exclusive rights to a common word like "KRISHNA," in line with legal precedents.

Appellate Jurisdiction:
The court cited the law on appellate jurisdiction regarding interlocutory orders, emphasizing that appellate courts should not interfere unless the lower court's discretion was exercised arbitrarily or ignored legal principles. The court upheld the single judge's decision, highlighting that final judgment would be based on trial evidence.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, directing the respondent to maintain sales records. No costs were awarded, and the judgment emphasized that the observations were tentative and limited to the interim stage, pending final trial proceedings.

---