65th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra56948179181897 Tamil Nadu185459909136 Delhi152577264303 Gujarat152057549938 Rajasthan79474566178 Madhya Pradesh72613927313 Uttar Pradesh69913991182 West Bengal41921578289 Andhra Pradesh3245213359 Bihar300680014 Karnataka249379347 Punjab2106191840 Telangana2098132163 Jammu and Kashmir192185426 Odisha16608877 Haryana138183818 Kerala10885558 Assam832884 Uttarakhand493794 Jharkhand4621914 Chandigarh3641894 Chhatisgarh364830 Tripura2421650 Himachal Pradesh223634 Goa68370 Puducherry49170 Meghalaya20121 Nagaland1800 Manipur540 Arunachal Pradesh210 Mizoram110 Sikkim100
Nation Current Affairs 26 Mar 2019 Madras HC orders to ...

Madras HC orders to keep in abeyance its interim order against brand of Biscuits

Published Mar 26, 2019, 5:20 am IST
Updated Mar 26, 2019, 5:20 am IST
The said order may be kept in abeyance for a limited period so as to enable them to file a reply and to contest the matter effectively.
Madras high court
 Madras high court

Chennai: The Madras high court has ordered to keep in abeyance, the interim injunction granted against M/s Patanjali Biscuits Pvt. Ltd in the matter relating to infringement of the trade mark “Arokya”.

Justice S.Vaidyanathan passed the interim order and posted to April 3, further hearing of an application filed by M/s Patanjali Biscuits Pvt.Ltd, which sought to vacate the order of interim injunction, dated February 28, 2019.


Originally, on an application arising out of a suit filed by Hatsun Agro Product Ltd, the judge had on February 28 granted interim injunction against Patanjali Biscuits Pvt.Ltd. Aggrieved, the Patanjali Biscuits filed the present application.

The judge said the foremost contention raised by senior counsel P.S.Raman, appearing for Patanjali Biscuits was that the trademark “Patanjali Aarogya” was registered as early as in 2016 itself and that in the light of section 28 (3) of the Trademarks Act, the suit filed by Hatsun Agro Product was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. He has further contended that pursuant to the interim order, the Patanjali Biscuits incurred huge loss and therefore, the said order may be kept in abeyance for a limited period so as to enable them to file a reply and to contest the matter effectively.

In reply, counsel for Hatsun Products has submitted that there was no reason forthcoming on the side of Patanjali Biscuits for the delay in approaching the court and this court, on due satisfaction of the averments made in the applications for interim injunction and the plaint, had granted the interim order. He has further submitted that when the applicant had filed an application for registration of the trademark “Patanjali Arogya”, the Hatsun Products had made several objections to it.

But, however, the applicants had somehow managed to obtain the registration of trademark “Patanjali Aarogya” in the year 2016 irrespective of the fact that the trademark of the plaintiff was registered in the year 1995 itself, the judge added.

The judge said the counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that by deceptively adopting the trademark of the plaintiff, a wrong impression was shown in the minds of the public at large that the products of the plaintiff have been taken over by Patanjali Biscuits, even though they were two different entities as on date. It was the strong case of the applicant that when the registered ownership of the trademark of the Patanjali Biscuits is duly established, the plaintiff cannot proceed against them for the relief of infringement, as the applicant had registered the trademark “Patanjali Aarogya”.

“Coming to the crux of the matter, it is admitted fact that the applicants had duly registered their trademark “Patanjali Aarogya” in the year 2016, which was much later to the registration of the plaintiff’s trademark “Arokya” in 1995. In totality, finding prima facie case and balance of convenience of the applicants, I find justification in the contention raised by the senior counsel for the applicant and the inrim relief granted by this court is liable to be kept in abeyance for two weeks without rendering any opinion on the merits of the suit”, the judge added.