A.D.PADMASINGH ISAAC Vs. AACHI CARGO CHANNELS PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellants/applicants in O.A.No.378 of 2010 in C.S.No.341 of 2010, questioning the order dated 10.12.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in the above application declining to grant an order of interim injunction pending suit.

(2.) FACTS in Brief: The appellants are the Proprietors of the Trademark ".Aachi". The first appellant secured the registration of trademark ".Aachi". in the year 1999 with respect to masalas and spices. Thereafter, it secured 51 other registrations of trademark ".Aachi". in various labels and cartons. The respondent, which was incorporated as ".Aachi Cargo Channels Private Limited". under the Companies Act, 1956, was dealing with cargo services transporting various goods. The appellants filed a suit in C.S.No.341 of 2010 on the file of this Court alleging infringement on the part of the respondent of their registered trade mark. The appellants also filed an application before the Regional Director of Companies, seeking to cancel and rectify the name ".Aachi Cargo Channels Private Limited". under Section 20 of the Companies Act, 1956. Pending the suit filed for permanent injunction, the appellants had filed an application in O.A.No.378 of 2010 in C.S.No.341 of 2010 seeking temporary injunction. The learned single Judge, by a detailed order, after considering the submissions made by both sides, was pleased to dismiss the application on 10.12.2011. Challenging the order of the learned single Judge, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

(3.) SUBMISSIONS of the Respondent: - Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that admittedly the appellants and the respondent are operating in two different and distinct fields having no connection whatsoever with each other. There is no similarity of goods manufactured and the service rendered by the parties. There is no likelihood of causing any confusion in the minds of the public that the business of the respondent is that of the appellants. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal deserves to be rejected.