Jindal Rectifiers vs. Jindal Power And Another

Facts

The appellant, Jindal Rectifiers, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, Jindal Power and another, alleging trademark infringement, dilution of goodwill, and unfair competition. The appellant claimed to be a proprietorship concern manufacturing power control devices since 1983 under the name 'Jindal Rectifiers' and held a registered trademark for such products. The appellant alleged that respondent no. 2, an ex-employee, started a similar business under the name 'M/s. Jindal Powers' in the same city, targeting the same customers and creating a deceptive impression of association. The appellant sought an interim injunction to restrain the respondents. The trial court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding no similarity in products or logos and noting that the appellant's proprietor's surname was not 'Jindal'. The appellant appealed this dismissal.

Held

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the trial court. The Court found that the trial court had erred on facts by observing that the surname of the appellant's proprietor was not 'Jindal' and by failing to consider the extensive use of the name 'Jindal' by the appellant and its associate firms for over 50 years in the electrical equipment business. The Court also noted that documents revealed similarity in the products manufactured by both parties. The Court distinguished the case from *Skyline Education Institute* by stating that the factual aspect in the present case was contrary, and there was no material to hold 'Jindal' as a generic word at this stage. The Court held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for a temporary injunction, as the balance of convenience was in its favor, and it would suffer irreparable loss, particularly in terms of goodwill and reputation, if interim relief was not granted. The Court applied the principle from *Dalpat Kumar Vs. Prahlad Singh* (AIR 1993 SC 276) that for determining a prima facie case, the relevant consideration is whether a conclusion is possible from the material on record, not whether it is the only conclusion. The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from using any mark having 'Jindal' in whole or part, as a trademark, trade name, or domain name, in relation to their goods, services, or any other activity. The Court clarified that these observations were limited to the appeal and would not affect the proceedings before the trial court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case for infringement of trademark and unfair competition against the respondents, considering the use of the name 'Jindal' and the similarity of products, as per Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and principles of trademark law. 2. Whether the balance of convenience and the likelihood of suffering irreparable loss favor the appellant, warranting an interim injunction against the respondents' business activities. Petitioner/Appellant's Arguments: - The learned Additional District Judge erred in dismissing the application for interim injunction. - The products manufactured and sold by the appellant and respondents are the same, and their logos are similar. - The trade name 'Jindal' has been used by the appellant and its associate firms ('Jindal Electricals', 'Jindal Electric and Machinery Corporation') for over 50 years, becoming a mark of identification for their electrical equipment. - The appellant's goodwill is primarily associated with the trademark 'Jindal's'. - The appellant discovered the deception when an old client received two different price quotations from 'Jindal's' units. - The trial court erred in observing that the appellant's proprietor's surname is not 'Jindal' and failed to consider the long-standing use of the name by associate firms. - The appellant has a good prima facie case, the balance of convenience is in its favor, and it will suffer irreparable loss if an injunction is not granted. Respondents' Arguments: - The respondent runs their firm as 'M/s. Jindal Powers' with a different logo. - The appellant's claim is based on ill-will due to respondent no. 2 being a former employee. - No rule or law has been violated, and no trademark has been infringed. - The respondent registered their firm under GST on 15.12.2017 and applied for trademark registration. - No prima facie case or balance of convenience is made out in favor of the appellant, nor will it suffer irreparable loss if an injunction is not granted. - Relied on *Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Ltd. V. S.L. Vaswani and another* (2010 AIR (SC) 3221) to argue that 'Jindal' might be a generic word.