Kriti Nutrients LTD. vs. M/S Rajlakshmi Oils

Held

The High Court held that the scope of an appellate court's power to interfere with an interim order passed by the court of first instance is limited. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India (P) Ltd., Esha Ekta Apartments CHS Ltd. vs. The Municipal Corporation of Mumbai & Anr., and Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. S.L. Vaswani, the Court emphasized that appellate courts should not substitute their own discretion for that of the trial court unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or if settled principles of law were ignored. The Court found that the trial court's decision was a possible view based on the material before it and that the appellate court would not be justified in interfering solely because it might have come to a different conclusion on a de novo consideration. Therefore, the appeals were found to be devoid of substance and were dismissed. However, to avoid complications in quantifying potential damages if the appellant ultimately succeeds, the respondent was directed to maintain a ledger of accounts for the sale of disputed products and submit it to the trial court annually until the suit is disposed of.

Facts

Kriti Nutrients Ltd. (appellant/plaintiff) filed a civil suit seeking declaration and injunction under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Copyright Act, 1957, against M/s. Rajlaxmi Oils (respondent/defendant). Kriti Nutrients claimed to be a manufacturer and marketer of edible oils under the trade name "KIRTI" since 1990, with distinctive trademarks and artwork. They alleged that Rajlaxmi Oils was using an identical and deceptively similar trademark/packaging/trade dress "KRITI" for similar edible oil products. Kriti Nutrients filed an application for temporary injunction (I.A. No. 01/2023) which was dismissed by the Commercial Court, Indore, via an order dated 04.07.2023. Kriti Nutrients Ltd. filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5004/2023 against this dismissal. M/s. Rajlaxmi Oils filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5126/2023, also aggrieved by the same order, contending the trial court failed to appreciate the controversy correctly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Commercial Court erred in dismissing the application for temporary injunction filed by Kriti Nutrients Ltd. under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, thereby failing to protect its alleged trademark and copyright rights in the "KRITI" mark and artwork, considering the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Copyright Act, 1957? Petitioner/Appellant (Kriti Nutrients Ltd.) argued that the respondent's use of the "KRITI" trademark and artwork was identical and deceptively similar to their own established mark, leading to potential confusion among consumers. They relied on their long-standing use and reputation since 1990. They sought to restrain the respondent from infringing their intellectual property rights. Respondent/State (M/s. Rajlaxmi Oils) argued that the trial court's decision was based on a proper appreciation of the material placed before it and that the appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court unless it was arbitrary, capricious, or perverse, citing principles from cases like Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India (P) Ltd.