Copyright injunction could not defeat an unchallenged family business allocation allowing use of the BANPHOOL mark.

A copyright-based injunction could not restrain use of the BANPHOOL mark and label where a competent tribunal had already treated the company as a closely held family business and equitably divided the business between rival groups. The tribunal's unchallenged arrangement allowed one group to continue the same family business through a separate company, while the other retained the Kolkata unit. On that footing, the defendant's use of the mark and artistic get-up for the allotted business was authorised by the tribunal order and was not an unlawful appropriation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendant was entitled to use the mark and artistic get-up 'BANPHOOL' on its label and carton for marketing hair oil notwithstanding the plaintiff's claim of copyright ownership.

Analysis: The plaintiff's case rested on the proposition that the copyrights in the label and carton of the family business vested exclusively in it upon incorporation. The dispute, however, had already been adjudicated in company proceedings between the two family groups. The competent tribunal had treated the company as a closely held family business, found that Biswanath Sharma had developed and headed the business, and exercised its equitable powers to divide the business, assets, and liabilities between the rival groups. Under that arrangement, the plaintiff group retained the Kolkata unit, while the Biswanath group was permitted to carry on the same family business through a newly floated company from the Delhi and Baddi units. On that footing, the defendant's use of the mark and carton was not an unauthorised appropriation but flowed from the unchallenged tribunal order and the equitable division of the business.

Conclusion: The defendant was entitled to use 'BANPHOOL' in connection with the business allotted to its group, and the claim for injunction against such use failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a competent tribunal, in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction over a family company dispute, has divided the business and granted one group liberty to carry on the same business through a separate company, a copyright-based injunction cannot be used to negate that unchallenged allocation and restrain the authorised use of the business mark.

---