Intellectual Property Rights

PETITIONER:
LAXMIKANT V.
PATEL

RESPONDENT:
Vs CHETANBHAT SHAH
& ANR

CASE
SUMMARY

Plaintiff started his color lab and studio business in the year 1982
in Ahmedabad by the name of MJ and later changed the name to
QSS- Muktajivan Color Lab in 1995.
The name was being used openly, extensively and to the
knowledge of everyone concerned.

Passing Off

To develop his business, the plaintiff promoted his wife to open a

new color lab in the name & style of Muktajivan Color Studio at
two other localities of Ahmedabad.

Permanent
Preventive
Injunction

Defendent, who is running a similar business as Gokul Studio, is

intending to commence business through his wife, by adopting the
name of Muktajivan Colour Lab and Studio

Ad-Interim
Injunction

A passing off action was initiated by filing a suit at the District

Court, seeking issuance of permanent preventive injunction
against the defendants by. An application seeking an Ad-Interim
injunction was also filed.

Key Terms

The defendants submitted that they had already started their

business by the name of Muktajivan Colour Lab & Studio before
the filing of the suit. Also, the two localities were away from each
other

CASE
ANALYSIS

ISSUE
RULES
ARGUMENTS
CONCLUSION

To determine whether the plaintiffs

application seeking an Ad-Interim
injunction against the use of the trade
name Muktajivan by the defendants
should be granted or not.

CASE
ANALYSIS

An action for passing- off will lie wherever the defendant

companys name, or its intended name, is calculated to deceive,
and so to divert business from the plaintiff.
Where there is probability of confusion in business, an injunction
will be granted even though the defendants adopted the name
innocently.

ISSUE
RULES
ARGUMENTS
CONCLUSION

With the lapse of time such business or services associated with a

person acquire a reputation or goodwill which becomes a property
which is protected by courts.
The law does not permit any one to carry on his business in such a
way as would persuade the customers or clients in believing that
the goods or services belonging to someone else are his or are
associated therewith. It does not matter whether the latter person
does so fraudulently or otherwise.
The three elements of passing off action: The reputation of goods,
possibility of deception and likelihood of damages to the plaintiff.
Principle are same for trade mark, and trade name.
Plaintiff does not have to prove actual damage in order to succeed
in an action for passing off. Likelihood of damage is sufficient.

CASE
ANALYSIS

ISSUE
RULES
ARGUMENTS

Arguments at the District Court

Plaintiff carries his business in the trade name Muktajivan Colour
Lab at least since 1995.
Defendants had recently adopted the word Muktajivan as their
business name & had done so on or about the date of the
institution of the suit.
Defendants studios name was somewhat identical with the
trade name of the Appellant.

CONCLUSION
Decision
Injunction was refused on the grounds that the nature of the two
businesses was different and business of the defendants was in the
other part of the city of Ahmedabad, at a distance of about 4 to 5
km.

CASE
ANALYSIS

ISSUE
RULES
ARGUMENTS
CONCLUSION

Arguments at the High Court

Defendants business had already come into existence on the date
of the institution of the suit and therefore they could not be
restrained by issuance of injunction
No pleadings suggested that the other two businesses using
Muktajivan as part of their trade names were so using the name
under the authority and licence of the Appellant
Therefore Plaintiff was not entitled to grant of an injunction
restraining only the Defendants

Decision
The appeal was dismissed by High Court. Plaintiff filed an appeal
before the Supreme Court of India. Supreme Court ruled on the
basis of finding arrived at by the Trial Court that Plaintiff has been
doing his business under the impugned name at least since 1995.

CASE
ANALYSIS

ISSUE
RULES
ARGUMENTS
CONCLUSION

Arguments at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not find the discretion exercised by the
Trial Court and the High Court to be reasonable or judicious.
The case falls within well accepted exceptions because the grant of
interlocutory injunction to the plaintiff should not have been
refused.
Decision
An ad-interim injunction was issued in favour of the plaintiff
restraining the defendants from using directly or indirectly the
word Muktajivan in their trade name associated with the business
The plaintiff was declared to be entitled to costs throughout
incurred up to that stage

The court made it clear that the order was being passed at an
interlocutory stage and thus, any observation made by the
Supreme Court would not come in the way of decision making by
the lower courts.

CASE
ANALYSIS

ISSUE
RULES
ARGUMENTS
CONCLUSION

Based on the above arguments and the

rules of passing off, we believe that the
plaintiffs application seeking an Ad-Interim
injunction against the use of the trade
name Muktajivan by the defendants
should have been granted.