Prima facie trademark proprietorship defeated interim injunction where the alleged assignment appeared backdated and unreliable.

In an interim trademark injunction dispute, a purported assignment executed earlier but produced much later was treated with suspicion because it emerged after insolvency and liquidation began, covered only part of the marks, included later-registered marks, and appeared supported by nominal consideration. The court treated the question as one of prima facie proprietorship and held that the alleged assignment did not establish a present enforceable right to restrain use of the marks. The ex parte interim order was therefore vacated, and the refusal of injunction was affirmed on a prima facie assessment, expressly limited to the interlocutory stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged deed of assignment of the seven trademarks in favour of the appellant was prima facie valid and capable of supporting an injunction against the respondent. (ii) Whether the ex parte interim order granted in appeal ought to be vacated for non-appearance and suppression, and whether the refusal of injunction by the court below should be affirmed.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged deed of assignment of the seven trademarks in favour of the appellant was prima facie valid and capable of supporting an injunction against the respondent.

Analysis: The dispute was treated as one of prima facie proprietorship of the trademarks rather than mere infringement. The alleged assignment, said to have been executed in 2017 but produced much later, was viewed with serious suspicion because it surfaced only after the corporate insolvency and liquidation process had commenced, related to only seven out of fourteen marks, included marks registered later, and was allegedly supported by a nominal consideration. The statutory scheme governing assignment of trademarks and the limited prima facie effect of registration did not support acceptance of the assignment at the interim stage. The alleged assignment was regarded as backdated, irregular, and incapable of creating a present prima facie right in the appellant.

Conclusion: The alleged assignment was not accepted as prima facie valid, and no injunction could be founded on it in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte interim order granted in appeal ought to be vacated for non-appearance and suppression, and whether the refusal of injunction by the court below should be affirmed.

Analysis: The materials showed that the respondent had not effectively been before the court when the earlier interim order was passed, and sufficient cause was found for its non-appearance. On a fuller consideration of the record, the court held that the earlier interim order should be set aside. The impugned refusal of injunction was treated as justified, though for reasons different from those earlier recorded, because the appellant had failed to establish any prima facie enforceable right to restrain the respondent from using the marks.

Conclusion: The ex parte interim order was vacated, and the refusal to grant injunction was affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, the interim restraint earlier granted to the appellant was withdrawn, and the respondent's position regarding use of the marks prevailed at the interlocutory stage, with the findings expressly confined to a prima facie assessment in the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for ad interim injunction, a trademark assignment that appears backdated, is produced long after the alleged execution, and is surrounded by suspicious circumstances may be treated as not establishing prima facie proprietary rights, so that no injunction will ordinarily follow from the asserted registration alone.

---