Forum shopping and prior user rights defeat interim trademark restraint where clean hands and exclusive rights are not prima facie shown.

Forum shopping and lack of bona fides can defeat interim relief where a party withdraws earlier proceedings after failing to obtain protection and then seeks the same restraint in a new forum. The court also found the alleged oral family settlement uncorroborated and insufficient, on a prima facie basis, to establish an exclusive right over the mark for Class 12 goods. By contrast, the appellants showed longstanding prior continuous use, attracting protection under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. On the interlocutory record, the respondent could not sustain an interim injunction and the restraint against the appellants was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent was disentitled to interim relief on account of forum shopping and lack of bona fides after withdrawing earlier proceedings in another forum; (ii) whether the alleged oral family settlement prima facie established an exclusive right in the respondent to use the mark for Class 12 goods and to restrain the appellants; (iii) whether the appellants were protected by prior user rights under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and, on the facts, whether interim injunction against use of the mark could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent was disentitled to interim relief on account of forum shopping and lack of bona fides after withdrawing earlier proceedings in another forum.

Analysis: The withdrawal of the earlier suit with liberty to file afresh did not prevent the Court from examining the respondent's conduct at the stage of interim relief. The respondent had earlier failed to obtain interim protection in the Bilaspur proceedings and then filed a fresh suit in Delhi seeking the same restraint. Such conduct was treated as an attempt to secure a second chance before another forum after an adverse interim outcome. Interim relief, being discretionary and equitable, requires bona fide conduct and clean hands.

Conclusion: Yes. The respondent was disentitled to interim relief on account of forum shopping and lack of bona fides.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged oral family settlement prima facie established an exclusive right in the respondent to use the mark for Class 12 goods and to restrain the appellants.

Analysis: The plea of an oral family settlement was found to be uncorroborated by any board resolutions or other implementation material, though the businesses were carried on through companies. The crucial plea was absent from the earlier Bilaspur pleadings and appeared only in the second round, which weakened its prima facie credibility. On the facts, the family had historically used the mark across businesses, and the separation of branches did not itself prove an agreement barring the appellants from using the mark in allied goods.

Conclusion: No. The alleged family settlement did not prima facie justify restraining the appellants from using the mark.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellants were protected by prior user rights under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and, on the facts, whether interim injunction against use of the mark could be sustained.

Analysis: Section 34 preserves the rights of a prior continuous user against a registered proprietor. The pleadings showed longstanding family use of the mark since 1983 across the group, including use in relation to the relevant class of goods while the parties were together. The respondent's registration was of a label mark, not a pure word mark, and the competing labels were materially different. The appellants also offered an undertaking to add source identifiers, which reduced any likelihood of confusion. On a prima facie view, the three injunction factors did not favour the respondent.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to rely on prior user rights, and the interim injunction could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The interim injunction was set aside, the respondent's application for interim relief failed, and the appellants were permitted to continue use of the mark in the manner recorded, pending disposal of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant who, after failing to obtain interim relief in earlier proceedings, re-litigates the same claim in another forum may be denied equitable interim relief for forum shopping and want of clean hands, and a registered proprietor cannot, at the interlocutory stage, restrain a prior continuous user protected by Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

---