Can a Family Court entertain a trademark infringement suit?

 

Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163

 Interestingly, the impugned order has been issued in OP No.1509/2021, namely Ext.P1 filed by the petitioner, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent from entering into the two shop rooms scheduled therein, which are situated at Changanacherry. The respondent, by filing a counterclaim, alleging that the said shops are being run under the name “CALLUNA”, over which, she holds a valid Trade Mark; and therefore, sought an injunction against the petitioner from using it in any manner. {Para 2}

3. The learned Family Court initially passed an order, which was challenged before this Court, culminating in a judgment remanding the matter; and thereupon the learned Court reconsidered the matter, which has now led to Ext.P10 order.

4. Pertinently, through Ext.P10, I.A.No.1/2021 filed by the petitioner seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent from entering into the two shop rooms has been rejected; but the latter's application, namely I.A.No.10/2022, has been allowed, thus restraining the former from using the trademark “CALLUNA”, with a consequential direction to him to remove it from the name boards/hoardings and social media, wherever he has displayed/used in his personal capacity.

 Obviously, an injunction against the petitioner, to remove the name boards, prima facie, can be interpreted to the prejudice of the respondent because, going by the findings of the learned Family Court, she is entitled to be in charge of the shop room, at least equally with the petitioner.

9. That apart, when the specific case of the petitioner was that a counterclaim seeking a roving order as now asserted by Sri.Manu G.Nair is not maintainable, it has not been considered by the learned Court in that perspective, but it appears to have gone on on the assumption that what has been sought for is confined to the subject matter. This is indubitable because, nowhere in the impugned order is there any discussion by the learned Family

Court whether a counterclaim, which runs beyond the original petition particularly with respect to shops which are not part of the subject matter, would be maintainable; but it has proceeded on the impression that the injunction has been sought only as against  such subject matter.

11. In the afore circumstances, we allow this original petition and set aside Ext.P10 to the extent impugned, namely qua I.A.No.10/2022; with a consequential direction to the learned Family Court to reconsider the said application after affording necessary opportunities to both sides, thus culminating in an appropriate fresh order expeditiously.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP (FC) NO. 591 OF 2024

C. K. CHANDRAN Vs  MANJU, 

PRESENT

 MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

&  MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA

Dated: 10.10.2024.

Citation: 2024:KER:77983