Composite trademark protection and territorial use can sustain interim restraint where confusion and prior reputation are shown.

A proprietor of a composite registered mark may rely on the prominent word element for infringement if the registration places no restriction on that feature, so the infringement claim was treated as maintainable. A passing off claim, however, requires a prima facie territorial showing, and vague assertions that goods were available near the Delhi-Haryana border were insufficient to establish jurisdiction in Delhi. On interim relief, the pending validity challenge to the defendant's registration, limited prior use confined largely to Goa, and the plaintiff's prima facie reputation and likelihood of confusion justified continuing the restraint on use outside Goa until trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit for infringement was maintainable where the plaintiff's registration was for a composite label mark but protection was sought for the prominent word element; (ii) whether a passing off claim could be maintained on the pleadings and material showing alleged availability of the defendant's goods in Delhi; (iii) whether the interim restraint on the defendant's use of the mark outside Goa should continue pending trial in view of the competing registrations, territorial use, and likelihood of confusion.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for infringement was maintainable where the plaintiff's registration was for a composite label mark but protection was sought for the prominent word element.

Analysis: The plaintiff held a registration for a composite label in which the word element was the prominent feature. A registered proprietor is not barred from relying on the prominent and distinctive element of the composite mark merely because the registration extends to the label as a whole. The absence of any limitation in the registration certificate on the use of the word element supported maintainability under the infringement provision.

Conclusion: The suit for infringement was maintainable and the objection to jurisdiction on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a passing off claim could be maintained on the pleadings and material showing alleged availability of the defendant's goods in Delhi.

Analysis: A passing off claim required a proper prima facie showing that the defendant's goods were available within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The plaint contained only vague assertions that the goods were found at the Delhi-Haryana border, without clarity as to whether they were on the Delhi side. The attempt to invoke leave against a single remaining defendant did not fit the pleaded situation. The material was insufficient to establish a maintainable passing off cause within Delhi.

Conclusion: The passing off claim was not accepted on the material before the Court.

Issue (iii): Whether the interim restraint on the defendant's use of the mark outside Goa should continue pending trial in view of the competing registrations, territorial use, and likelihood of confusion.

Analysis: The defendant's plea under the provision protecting co-registered marks did not defeat the plaintiff's case at this stage because the validity challenge to the defendant's registration was pending. The defendant was using only part of its registered composite marks and had altered the presentation of the impugned word in a manner closer to the plaintiff's mark. Its prior use material showed sales largely confined to Goa, whereas the plaintiff showed extensive use and reputation across India. For identical marks used on cognate and similar goods, the likelihood of confusion and dilution was substantial, and the balance of convenience favoured confining the defendant's use to Goa.

Conclusion: The interim arrangement restricting the defendant's use of the mark to Goa was continued pending trial, and the defendant's request for vacation of the restraint was refused.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff succeeded in preserving interim protection for its mark, while the defendant's challenge to the restraint failed. The order kept the territorial limitation in force until final adjudication, without expressing any final view on the merits of either side's substantive rights.

Ratio Decidendi: A proprietor of a composite registered mark may seek protection of its prominent feature, and where identical marks are used for similar goods, a co-registered defendant cannot defeat interim restraint at the interlocutory stage by relying on a pending validity challenge and limited territorial use when the plaintiff shows prima facie reputation, likelihood of confusion, and balance of convenience in its favour.

---