- (1.) The appellant sells tea under what it calls "an umbrella trade mark", namely, "tea City". According to the appellant there are different kinds of tea which are sold under this umbrella trade mark with specific trade marks in respect of particular kinds of tea. One of the kinds of tea sold in this manner is "super CUP" which pertains to extra strong CTC Tea. The appellant claims that it has been selling such tea under the trade mark "super CUP" since 1987-88 and had not only invested a large amount in advertising this particular product but had effected large sales as a result of which the appellant had built up goodwill and reputation in respect of the name 258 "super CUP" and that the customers had come to associate that mark with the appellant's extra strong CTC Tea.
(2.) On the allegation that the respondent, also in the tea business, had wrongfully used the words "super CUP" in connection with the sale of its tea, the appellant filed proceedings before the High Court alleging passing on of its trade mark "super CUP" by the respondent and praying for an injunction to restrain the respondent from doing so and for other consequential reliefs.
(3.) The appellant filed an application in the suit for an interim injunction. This was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent appealed before the Division Bench. The Division Bench allowed the appeal. It upheld the learned Single Judge's view that the appellant's products had displayed the mark "super CUP" prominently and "tea City" did not occupy a prominent position and rejected the respondent's submission that the trade mark of the appellant was a composite one of "tea City SUPER CUP". The division Bench also upheld the Single Judge's opinion that the appellant's trade mark was "super CUP". However, the Division Bench held that the words "super" referred to the character or quality of the tea and was merely a laudatory word and the word "cup" referred to a cup of tea. Accordingly, the conclusion of the Division Bench was that the phrase "super CUP" was descriptive and laudatory of the goods of the appellant and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to any order of injunction.;