Pending trademark rectification proceedings justify suit stay; interim injunction denied where jurisdiction, urgency, and confusion were not established.

Rival trademark registrations and pending rectification proceedings attracted the statutory stay under Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, so the suit was stayed even though some rectification petitions were filed after the suit. The request for interim restraint failed because the plaintiff showed doubtful territorial jurisdiction, lacked urgency, suppressed material facts, and could not demonstrate a strong likelihood of confusion, especially where its business was largely confined to the Canteen Stores Department. Interim injunction was refused and the prior restraint was vacated, subject only to maintenance of accounts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was liable to be stayed under Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 because rectification proceedings concerning the rival trademarks were pending; (ii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim restraint against the defendant's use of the marks pending suit.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was liable to be stayed under Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 because rectification proceedings concerning the rival trademarks were pending.

Analysis: Both parties held registrations and each challenged the validity of the other's registration. Rectification proceedings regarding the marks were already pending, and the pendency of such proceedings, once instituted, attracted the statutory scheme of stay under Section 111. The fact that some rectification proceedings were filed after the suit did not matter for this purpose.

Conclusion: The suit was stayed under Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim restraint against the defendant's use of the marks pending suit.

Analysis: The plaintiff's claim for interim injunction was found to be weak on several grounds: doubtful territorial jurisdiction in relation to the local advertisement relied upon, lack of urgency, concealment of material facts, and the evidence indicating that the defendant's use of the marks was earlier or at least substantial. The Court also found little likelihood of confusion, particularly because the plaintiff's dealings were largely confined to the Canteen Stores Department and not to the ordinary trade public.

Conclusion: Interim injunction was refused and the earlier interim restraint was vacated.

Final Conclusion: The respondent succeeded on the stay application, while the plaintiff's request for interim injunctive relief failed, leaving the suit stayed and no restraint operating against the defendant apart from the direction to maintain accounts.

Ratio Decidendi: Where rival trademark registrations are under challenge and rectification proceedings are pending, the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 111; interim injunction will not be granted where territorial jurisdiction is doubtful, the plaintiff lacks urgency, material facts are suppressed, and confusion in trade is unlikely.

---