Trade dress similarity and territorial jurisdiction in trademark suits can defeat interim injunctions where confusion and forum basis are unproven.

Trade dress and passing off claims require a fact-specific comparison of wrappers as a whole, including colour scheme, lettering, get-up and design; mere phonetic resemblance is insufficient where material visual differences exist, and interim relief was not sustained on that basis. Territorial jurisdiction in a suit founded on registered trade mark infringement and passing off is governed by the special jurisdiction rule under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, read with the general territorial rule; on the plaint averments, Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction over the trade mark causes of action. Where jurisdiction is lacking, balance of convenience does not support continuation of the injunction, and the interim order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the defendants' wrappers and trade dress were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's so as to justify an interim injunction for infringement and passing off; (ii) whether the Ghaziabad court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit; (iii) whether the balance of convenience justified continuance of the injunction.

Issue (i): Whether the defendants' wrappers and trade dress were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's so as to justify an interim injunction for infringement and passing off.

Analysis: The competing wrappers were compared as a whole, including colour scheme, lettering, get-up, and back-side design. The differences in the prominent words used, the absence of the plaintiff's seal and "Estd. 1912" on the defendants' product, and the distinct back-side design were treated as material. Mere phonetic resemblance between "Dodha" and "Todha" was held insufficient on the facts to establish likely deception or confusion at the interim stage.

Conclusion: The defendants' wrappers were not found to be deceptively similar, and interim relief could not be sustained on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the Ghaziabad court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Analysis: The suit, so far as it was founded on infringement of a registered trade mark and passing off, attracted the special jurisdiction rule under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, read with the general rule of territorial jurisdiction. On the plaint averments, the cause relating to trade mark infringement and passing off did not lie within Ghaziabad. The copyright-based jurisdiction clause could not validate the suit there for the trade mark causes of action.

Conclusion: The Ghaziabad court was held to have no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit for the trade mark and passing off claims.

Issue (iii): Whether the balance of convenience justified continuance of the injunction.

Analysis: Since the jurisdictional defect went to the root of the matter, the ordinary injunction balance was not treated as decisive in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant's inability to carry on business under restraint and the uncertainty of loss were considered to weigh against continuation of the order.

Conclusion: The balance of convenience was held to be in favour of the defendants.

Final Conclusion: The interim injunction was set aside and the appeal was allowed, while the suit itself was left to be decided independently on evidence and in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit founded on trade mark infringement and passing off, where the court lacks territorial jurisdiction under the special jurisdiction provision, an interim injunction cannot be sustained merely on balance of convenience or on a claimed similarity in trade dress not shown to be deceptively similar on the facts.

---