Interim injunction granted for 'Sainik' trademark, suit stayed under Section 111 due to pending rectification.

The court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff for the trademark 'Sainik' but not for 'Harsha'. The court decided to stay the suit under Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act due to pending rectification proceedings challenging both parties' trademark registrations. The court found insufficient evidence to support an injunction against the defendant's use of the trademarks, considering the plaintiff's delay in seeking protection, conduct in previous proceedings, and market presence compared to the defendant. The plaintiff's application was dismissed, the interim injunction lifted, and the suit proceedings stayed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Suit based on allegations of trademark infringement and passing off.
2. Request for injunction against manufacturing, selling, and advertising sewing machines under specific trademarks.
3. Opposition to injunction and request for stay of suit due to pending rectification proceedings.
4. Decision on the stay of the suit and interim injunction.

Analysis:
1. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to sewing machines under the trademarks 'Sainik' and 'Harsha'. The defendant opposed the injunction and sought a stay of the suit due to pending rectification proceedings challenging the registration of the trademarks. Both parties were registered users of the trademarks, with disputes over earlier use and validity of registrations. The defendant's use of 'Sainik' was limited to Rajasthan, and the cause of action for the suit was based on an advertisement in a local Rajasthan paper. An interim injunction was granted for 'Sainik' but not for 'Harsha'.

2. The main issues were whether the suit should be stayed due to pending rectification proceedings and if the defendant should be restrained from using the trademarks during the suit. The court found that the suit should be stayed under Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act due to challenges to both parties' trademark registrations.

3. Regarding the interim restraint, the court noted a lack of jurisdiction for the 'Sainik' trademark issue. The plaintiff's delay in seeking protection, conduct in previous proceedings, and misleading statements in the current suit weakened the case for an injunction. The court found insufficient evidence to justify interference with the defendant's use of the trademarks.

4. The court analyzed the usage history of the trademarks, noting the defendant's earlier use of 'Sainik' and 'Harsha'. The plaintiff's limited market scope compared to the defendant's wider market presence was considered. The court concluded that no injunction was justified, directing the defendant to maintain accounts of sewing machine dealings under the trademarks and file quarterly statements in court. The plaintiff's application was dismissed, the interim injunction vacated, and the suit proceedings stayed without costs.

---