Justice SR Krishna Kumar held that the nature of service alleged to be carried out by the parties was completely different and merely registering a trademark to carry on a completely different activity could not be the basis for a temporary injunction.
“I am of the considered opinion that the trial court clearly fell in error in allowing I.A.No.1 filed by the respondents and consequently, the impugned order passed by the trial court being wholly erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the material on record as well as well settled principles of law governing grant of injunction in relation to trademarks“, the order reads.
Source: Barandbench
