The Impugned Order:
The impugned order dated 10 10.2022 in question appears to have been solely based on the registered trademark favoring the plaintiff-respondents.

Lack of Discussion on Prior User Doctrine:
The most conspicuous absence in the impugned order is the lack of consideration for the prior user doctrine. Trademark law, in many jurisdictions, grants significant importance to the concept of prior user – the first entity to use a mark in commerce. The failure of the trial court to address this aspect is a critical omission, as prior user could potentially override the rights granted through a registered trademark.

Trademark Allotment Dispute:
The order also highlights a dispute concerning the number of registered trademarks allotted to each party and the applications seeking registration or cancellation of such trademarks. The absence of a thorough examination of these matters leaves room for ambiguity and raises questions about the adequacy of the court's decision.

Inadequate Material Analysis:
The analysis provided by the trial court regarding the material placed before it is described as "cryptic." A lack of detailed examination of the presented evidence hinders a clear understanding of the basis upon which the decision was made. Adequate analysis of the material is imperative, especially in trademark disputes where evidentiary details can substantially impact the outcome.

Insufficient Discussion of Injunction Prerequisites:
The court's order is criticized for its failure to elaborate on the three key prerequisites for the grant of a temporary injunction – prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. These factors form the foundation for granting injunctive relief and are central to preserving the rights of parties involved.

Consideration of Remand:
While the court expresses its general reluctance to remand cases to the trial court, it acknowledges the complexities and ambiguities in the current case. The multitude of disputes – trademark registration, withdrawal, prior user, and family history – presents a convoluted scenario that requires a thorough examination. Considering the lack of comprehensive analysis in the impugned order, a remand might be the only viable solution to ensure a just and well-informed decision.

Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: Iftikhar Alam Vs M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Judgement:07.08.2023
Case No. First Appeal from Order No.77 of 2023
Neutral Citation No: N.A.
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Rajendra Chandra Naik, H.J.
Name of Court: Allahabad High Court

Disclaimer:
Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539