Devinder Gupta, J.— By this application appellant/applicant is seeking interim ‘relief for the duration of appeal that the defendants/respondents be restrained from using the word ‘FIELD MARSHAL' as a part of their trading style on the goods.
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed suit claiming decree against the defendants/respondents and also filed an application seeking a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, which was opposed by the defendants/respondents. Learned Single Judge on 7.7.1999 passed an order restraining the respondents from manufacturing, selling or otherwise using the trade mark and logo ‘PFMA', ‘PFMI' and ‘MARSHAL' or any other trade mark identical or deceptively similar to the appellant's registered trade mark ‘FIELD MARSHAL'. The defendants were further restrained from passing off their goods deceptively similar by using the above words on the diesel engines manufactured by them. While issuing this temporary injunction, learned Single Judge clarified that the defendants will be entitled to use the trade name' Manufactured by M/s. Patel Field Marshal Industries/Agencies'. Feeling aggrieved with respect to that part of the order by which clarification was issued permitting the respondents to use the trade name ‘Manufactured by M/s. Patel Field Marshal Industries/Agencies', appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. Against grant of temporary injunction, defendants/respondents filed a separate appeal, being F.A.O (OS) 250/99. There is yet a third appeal, F.A.O (OS) 254/99 filed by the defendants/respondents against the order of learned Single Judge partly disallowing application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC.
3. The appeals were posted for hearing before us. We commenced the hearing. The plaintiff-appellant concluded arguments and learned Counsel for the respondents also concluded his arguments, but stated that he was confining his arguments only to the appeal preferred by the appellant and that he will argue his two appeals, F.A.O (OS) Nos. 250/99 and 254/99 separately for which purpose the said appeals already stand adjourned to 24.11.2000
4. The appelant alongwith its appeal had filed an application (C.M 2877/99) seeking further injunction against the respondents restraining them from using the trading style ‘Patel Field Marshal Industries/Agencies' during pendency of the appeal. No orders were passed on the said application in view of the fact that this appeal alongwith other appeals was directed to be posted for final hearing. At least this appeal has since been heard. As hearing the other appeals had to be adjourned because of the request made by learned Counsel for the respondents, fresh application (C.M 1306/2000) was moved by the appellant praying for an interim relief so that the order passed by learned Single Judge becomes effective and operative since the appellant states that the respondents are flouting the said order with impunity. Notice of the application was given to the respondents.
5. Needless to add that the defendants already stand restrained from manufacturing, selling or otherwise using the trade mark and logo ‘PFMA', ‘PFMI' and ‘MARSHAL' or any other trade mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark ‘FIELD MARSHAL' and also stand restrained from passing off their goods, which may be deceptively similar by using the aforementioned words on the diesel engines manufactured by them.
6. As noticed above, the defendants (respondents) were permitted to use Trade Name “Manufactured by M/s. Patel Field Marshal Industries/Agencies” and they were restrained from using the logo and the trade mark. The defendants cannot be permitted to use the trade name so as to defeat the other portion of the order. The distinction between logo, trade mark and trade name is well-known. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and other material on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits on either side, we are of the view that for effective operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, Prima facie a good case is made out for clarification and grant of an interim injunction as prayed for in this application for the duration of the appeal. Ordered accordingly.
7. It is made clear that opinion expressed while passing the order will not affect the merits of the case.
The application stands disposed of.