M/S Rajlaxmi Oils Through Sole Proprietor Mr. Kishore Kumar vs. Kriti Nutrients LTD.

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 interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court unless it is arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or ignores settled principles of law. The Court found that the trial court's decision was a possible view based on the material before it and that the appeals were devoid of substance. Therefore, the appeals 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's final disposal.

Facts

Kriti Nutrients Ltd. (appellant/plaintiff) filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction against M/s. Rajlaxmi Oils (respondent/defendant) before the Commercial Court, Indore. The appellant alleged that the respondent was manufacturing and marketing edible oils under an identical and deceptively similar trade mark/packaging/trade dress/label "KRITI" and "d`fr", infringing upon the appellant's established trade mark "KRITI" which it has been using since 1990. The appellant sought protection for its trade mark and artwork. The Commercial Court dismissed the appellant's application for temporary injunction (I.A. No. 01/2023) filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. Kriti Nutrients Ltd. filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5004/2023 against this dismissal. M/s. Rajlaxmi Oils filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5126/2023, aggrieved by the trial court's order, contending it failed to appreciate the controversy correctly. Both appeals were heard analogously.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Commercial Court erred in dismissing the appellant's application for a temporary injunction, thereby failing to protect the appellant's trade mark and artwork rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Copyright Act, 1957? Petitioner's Arguments (Kriti Nutrients Ltd.): The appellant argued that it is the established owner and prior user of the trade mark "KRITI" and associated artwork since 1990, having developed significant reputation and goodwill. The respondent's use of an identical and deceptively similar mark "KRITI" with similar packaging and artwork constitutes infringement and passing off. The appellant relied on its long and continuous use, extensive advertising, and statutory rights. Respondent's Arguments (M/s. Rajlaxmi Oils): The respondent contended that the Commercial Court correctly appreciated the controversy and that its order was justified. The judgment does not explicitly detail the respondent's specific arguments against the injunction, but it implies they argued against the appellant's claim of infringement or the necessity of an injunction at the interim stage. The respondent's appeal suggests they believed the trial court's decision was not fully appreciative of the facts.