A.L.Bahri - (1.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties I do not find any infirmity in the interim order passed by the trial Court on application filed under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the C.P.C. The plaintiffs M/s Mona Stationery brought the suit under section 120 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 read with section 60 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiffs are manufacturers of carbon papers under trade mark "MONA" ? "MONA SUPERNAL" and "MONA-303". The application for registration of these trade marks is stated to be under process. The defendant M/s Kores (India) Limited is also manufacturer of carbon papers under the trade mark "KORES" "KORES SAPPHIRE" and "KORES CARBOPLANE-503". This firm issued notice and threats to the plaintiff of breach of their copyright and trade mark.
(2.) SOME other litigation is also pending between the parties. The defendant, present petitioner, has filed criminal complaint in the Court at Bombay on January 8, 1988 and another complaint on February 18, 1988 under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade Marks Act. The defendant has also filed a suit in the Civil Court at Bombay (HIGH COURT) for infringement of their Trade mark and passing off the goods. The High Court of Bombay vide order dated March 30, 1990 declined the prayer of interim relief, while issuing notices. The trial Court coming to the conclusion that two Trade Marks of the parties being different, thus restrained the defendant from issuing any threats to the plaintiff by issuing notice or by way of advertisement insertion in newspapers in this respect. However, it was made clear that defendant would be at liberty to advertise its products in the media and to comment upon the quality of its products. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that in view of sub-section (2) of Section 120 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act read with proviso to section 6 of the Copyright Act, interim relief could not be granted by the trial Court. However, I am not convinced with this argument. Threats given in the present case were unjustified there being no similarly in the different Trade Marks of the parties. The mere fact that Trade Mark of the appellant was stated to be a registered one will not make any difference. The detailed discussion of this question at this stage is not called for as the question of similarity of trade marks is to be finally decided in the suit which is pending in the court at Bombay. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.;