D.R. Raanka Bros.     V/S     Om Prakash

02 Jul D.R. Raanka Bros.     V/S     Om Prakash

Would the appellate Court interfere with a relevant order if an element of discretion has been exercised one way or the other by a lower court??

The present suit is filed by the appellants D.R. Raanka Bros., in the Honourable High Court of Madras before Honourable Judges Sanjib Banerjee and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, against a common interlocutory order passed in a suit for infringement and passing-off. [O.S.A. Nos. 122 and 125 of 2020, Decided On: 23.02.2021]

The present appeal is directed against a common interlocutory order passed in a suit for infringement and passing-off.

The appellant has the device mark registered which has “DR” written on top in a particular style and “D.R. Raanka Bros.” written below in a stylized manner. However, it is the device as a whole that is the appellant’s trademark. The appellants state that they also enjoy the registration of a word mark “DR” and a further registration in “D.R. Raanka Bros”. The appellants are in the business of the sale of precious metal and jewellery. The respondents in the case are involved in similar business and are using the mark D.R.R. in connection with several other words, mostly in Tamil script, though the letters D.R.R. stand out in the advertisements and other material used by the respondents in connection with their products.

According to the appellants, the adoption of D.R.R. or D.R. with some other variation on the part of the respondents is dishonest, as those letters have nothing to do with the respondent’s business or their product and the real intention is to trade on the goodwill of the appellant’s market and filch the business of the appellants’. By the judgment and order impugned dated December 17, 2019, the learned Single Judge found that there was a distinction between the manner of use of the appellant’s mark and the respondent’s mark. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the appellants that the letters “D.R.R.” stood out from the material used by the respondents in connection with the sale of their products and noticed that the other words used were in comparable size though in different fonts. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that on an overall impression, it did not immediately hit that the respondent’s use of the letters “D.R.R.” brought about any association with the appellant’s “DR” or “D.R. Raanka Bros.” marks or the device mark. The present court asserted that, the use of very mark of the respondents complained against did not appear to be similar or a copy of the appellant’s mark, at least at the interlocutory stage, hence the injunction sought had been declined. Accordingly O.S.A. Nos. 122 and 125 of 2020 were disposed of without interfering with the judgment and order impugned dated December 17, 2019 and by leaving the parties free to have the trial conducted at the earliest. There was to be no order as to costs.