Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Case law analysis


Published on

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Case law analysis

  1. 1. Case Law Analysis: Nirapara Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ors ... Appellant /Defendant vs. Ammini Karnan, Proprietrix, K.K.R. Mills and Ors … Respondent/Plaintiff <ul><li>Lakshminarayanan Alaguraja </li></ul><ul><li>Advocate </li></ul>
  2. 2. TITLE & CITATION <ul><li>MANU/KE/0502/2010 </li></ul><ul><li>MIPR 2010 (2) 0295 </li></ul><ul><li>Nirapara Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ors </li></ul><ul><li>vs. </li></ul><ul><li>Ammini Karnan, Proprietrix, K.K.R. Mills and Ors </li></ul><ul><li>Order on I.A. No. 2677/07, In RFA. No. 371/2007 </li></ul><ul><li>Decided on: 11.05.2010 </li></ul>
  3. 3. PARTIES TO THE CASE <ul><li>Nirapara Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Managing Director, Xavier Chacko, Xavier Chacko S/o Chacko, Managing Director, Rosamma Xavier W/o Xavier Chacko, Addl. Director and Sunitha Jose W/o P.F. Joseph, Addl. Director, Nirapara Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. </li></ul><ul><li>Vs. </li></ul><ul><li>Ammini Karnan, Proprietrix, K.K.R. Mills and Ors. </li></ul>
  5. 5. A SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE LOWER COURTS <ul><li>in a passing off action, </li></ul><ul><li>Relief of ad interim injunction </li></ul>
  6. 6. ISSUES OF THE CASE/QUESTIONS OF LAW <ul><li>1. Whether the suit is maintainable? </li></ul><ul><li>2. Whether the plaintiffs are the prior users of an unregistered trade mark &quot;Nirapara&quot;? </li></ul><ul><li>3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction? </li></ul>
  7. 7. LEGAL STATUTES <ul><li>Cadila Health v. Cadila Pharma </li></ul><ul><li>Heinz Italia and Anr. v. Dabur India Ltd. </li></ul><ul><li>Lakshmikant v. Patel v. Chethanbhai Shah </li></ul><ul><li>Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills (P) Ltd. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. </li></ul>
  8. 8. RELEVANT LAWS/RULES/ORDERS <ul><li>Companies Act, 1956 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Section 20 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Section 21 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Section 39 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Indian Evidence Act, 1872 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Section 31 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Section 32(2) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Section 62 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Trademark Act, 1999 </li></ul>
  9. 9. DECISION/JUDGMENT <ul><li>the order of stay passed by lower Court in I.A. No. 2677/2007 will continue to the extent the same pertains to wheat and wheat products, but, not in respect of rice and rice products. </li></ul><ul><li>The appeal is allowed by way of remand. The parties will enter appearance before the court below on 1.7.2010. The learned District Judge will complete the enquiry and pass a revised judgment early and at any rate within six months thereafter. </li></ul>
  10. 10. DECISION/JUDGMENT <ul><li>The impugned judgment and decree are set aside. The suit is relegated to the District Court, Kottayam. The District Court is directed to take a fresh decision, after entering specific findings on the following questions: </li></ul><ul><li>Whether Ext.A40 mark has attained goodwill and reputation in the minds of potential consumers of the plaintiffs' products as on 25.3.1990 and whether the plaintiffs' mark has acquired a distinctive character among the consumers, so that the consumers identify the mark exclusively with the plaintiffs goods. </li></ul><ul><li>Whether the plaintiffs have sustained any damages on account of the defendants' user of Ext.A41 mark during the period from 25.3.1990 till the date of institution of the suit. </li></ul>
  11. 11. DECISION/JUDGMENT <ul><li>The learned District Judge will also reconsider the plea of acquiescence raised by the defendants, in the context of the delay caused by the plaintiffs in instituting the suit after Ext-.B31 notice was issued. </li></ul><ul><li>The learned District Judge will afford opportunity to the plaintiffs to adduce whatever further evidence they want to adduce in support of their case. The defendants also will be permitted to adduce further evidence. Fresh decision will be taken in the suit, in the Sight of the entirety of the evidence that comes on record. </li></ul>
  12. 12. REASONING OF THE JUDGMENT <ul><li>“ If the cause of action for passing of is not established then there is no necessity for the Court to look into other elements of misrepresentation and damage.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Plaintiff is not entitled to ad interim relief if acquiescence on part of Plaintiff is proved by Defendant.” </li></ul>
  13. 13. PRESENTER’S CASE ANALYSIS <ul><li>The first defendant is not legally entitled to pass off their goods using a trade mark which is identical or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs, the court below held that the plaintiffs being prior users are entitled for relief of injunction. </li></ul><ul><li>The plea of acquiescence taken by the defendants was also repelled by the court on the basis that the plaintiff was resisting the defendants' application for registration before the registering authority and thus agitating though before other forums for protecting their trade mark. </li></ul>
  14. 14. THANK YOU