RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. versus ARVINDBHAI RAMBHAI PATEL AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 521 · Decided: 29-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 
A 
v. 
ARVINDBHAI RAMBHAI PATEL AND ORS. 
AUGUST 29, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958-Sections 20), 15, 17, 28, 2-9, 
30(/)(b) 33, 48 and 49-Trade mark-Infringement of-Business under a 
particular trademark run though a Company-Another firm running business C 
of retail sale of the products of company-User agreement between the 
Company and the firm to use the registered trade mark for seven years-
Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the parties-Firm started 
manufacturing its own products under the said trade mark-The use of trade 
mark by thefinn questioned as infringement of trade mark by the Company-
Suit-Trial Court restrained the firm from using the trade mark by temporary D 
injunction except in seven outlets mentioned in Memorandum of 
Understanding-High Court upheld finding of trial court except the finding 
that printing and publication of the principal display panel was creating 
infringement of trademark-On appeal, held: Use of the trade mark of the 
Company by the firm for the goods manufactured by it. is infringement of E 
trademark-Firm had only a limited right under the MOU-Grant of 
trademark is an indicator of exclusivity in trade mark and this right cannot 
be transferred-Only a limited right of user can be granted via licence-User 
agreement having come to an end on expiry of seven years and such right 
not having conveyed in the MOU, Firm could not use the trade mark under 
either of them-By reason of interpretation of MOU trade mark cannot be F 
infringed especially when the right of user has been relinquished-When 
defences in regard to right of user are set up, the onus is on the party who 
takes such defence -Standards of Weights and Measures Act-Prevention of 
Food Adulteration Act. 
Deeds and Documents-Interpretation of-Held: A document must be G 
construed having regard to the terms and conditions as well as nature 
thereof-It should be read as a whole and to be construed keeping in view 
of the existing law. 
521 
H 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Interpretation of Statutes-Interpretation of non-obstante clause-Held: 
The interpretative process of a non-obstante clause must be kept confined to 
the legislative policy. 
Interlocutory hyunction-Grant of-In cases of infringement of trade 
mark-Held: In such cases injunction would ordinarily follow where it is 
B established that the defendant had infringed the trade mark and has not been 
able to discharge the burden as regards its defence-When a prima facie case 
is made out and balance of convenience is in favour of proprietor of trade 
mark only loss of goodwill and reputation to fulfil the condition of irreparable 
injury is necessary-In such case delay by itself may not be a ground for 
C refusing to issue injunction. 
D 
Evidence-Onus to prove-In case of infringement of trade mark-
Held: In such cases, the onus is on the defendant to show that he is entitled 
thereto either by reason of acquiescence on the part of the owner of the 
registered trade mark or he himself has acquired a right thereto. 
Doctrines/Principles: Doctrine of Passing Off and Doctrine of Waiver-
Meaning of . 
Principle of Estoppel and Principle of Acquiscence-Applicability of 
E 
Jurisdiction-Jurisdiction of appellate Court-To interfere with order 
of interlocut01y injunction-Held: Usually appellate court should not interfere 
with such order as the same is in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of trial 
court-However, it can substitute its discretion if finds that the discretion has 
been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or where the court has 
ignored settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory 
F injunctions. 
Words and Phrases: 'Trade mark', 'Passing off and 'Irreparable 
ilyury '-Meaning of 
A business of manufacturing and selling of spices under the trade name 
G of'Ramdev' was being run by three brothers through the appellant-company. 
A partnership firm of the respondents being 'Ramdev Masala' was being run 
through seven outlets for retail sale of the products of the Company. An user 
agreement was entered into by and between the appellant-company and the 
said firm permitting the firm to use the registered trade mark for seven yeal'li. 
H Still another partnership under the name 'Ramdev Exports' was to export the 
.. 
-
RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PVT.LTD. v. ARVINDBHAI RAMBHAI PATEL 
523 
spices manufactu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.