Trade mark interim injunction refused where prior use, weak Indian evidence, and limited transborder reputation favoured defendants.

A registered trade mark owner seeking interim injunction must still establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Here, prior user by the defendants in India since 1985, their organised business and sales network, and the plaintiffs' weak interim evidence of Indian use weighed against relief. The Court found that foreign magazine advertisements did not sufficiently prove Indian circulation or market use before the defendants' adoption, and that prolonged non-use in India also affected the claim. On the material before it, transborder reputation was not shown strongly enough to displace the defendants' prima facie defence, so interim injunction was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim injunction should be granted in favour of the registered trade mark owner against the defendants' use of the mark, having regard to prior user, delay, non-user, transborder reputation, and the balance of convenience.

Analysis: The registered proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to sue for infringement, but in interlocutory proceedings the Court must still assess whether a prima facie case exists, whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of grant, and whether refusal would cause irreparable injury. The defendants had been using the mark in India since 1985 and had built an organised business and sales network. The plaintiffs' evidence of use in India was found to be weak at the interim stage, as the foreign magazine advertisements did not sufficiently establish Indian circulation or use in the Indian market before 1985. The Court also found that the long period of non-use in India affected the nature of the relief, and that the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficiently strong case of transborder reputation reaching India before the defendants' adoption. In these circumstances, the defendants were held to have made out a strong prima facie case against grant of injunction, while the plaintiffs had not established that refusal of injunction would cause greater prejudice than grant.

Conclusion: Interim injunction was refused. The defendants were allowed to continue using the mark, and the plaintiffs' motion for injunction failed.

---