1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.5497/2020 before the Court of City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, challenging the order dated 30.1.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.1 to 3 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and I.A.No.4 filed under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC, whereby the Trial Court has allowed I.A.Nos.1 to 3 filed by the plaintiff and dismissed I.A.No.4 filed by the defendants whereby an order of temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendants, its agents, assignees, distributors or anyone claiming through them or in any manner are hereby restrained by an order of temporary injunction from using the trademark/word mark of the plaintiff-company ‘Therelek’ or any other trademark as may be deceptively similar with the trademark ‘THERELEK’ of the plaintiff, so as to infringe the plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘Therelek’ and from using the trademark/word mark of the plaintiff company ‘Therelek’ or any other trademark as may be deceptively similar with the trademark ‘THERELEK’ of the plaintiff, so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the defendants services as the services of the plaintiff and from canvassing the customers of the plaintiff company pertaining to the services of ‘Heat Treatment’ in the process of ‘Treatment of Materials’ as well as conducting business of services of ‘Heat Treatment’ in the process of ‘Treatment of Materials’ till disposal of the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.5497/2020 before the Trial Court seeking for relief of permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had also filed I.A.Nos.1 to 3 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for grant of an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark ‘THERELEK’. The Trial Court had granted exparte interim order on 15.12.2020. On service of summons, defendants appeared through counsel and filed written statement. The defendants filed I.A.No.4 for vacating the exparte interim order. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court by impugned order dated 30.1.2021 allowed I.A.Nos.1 to 3 filed by the plaintiff and dismissed I.A.No.4 filed by the defendants and an order of temporary injunction was granted. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellantsdefendants has contended that defendants are prior users of trademark ‘THERELEK’ and they are using the said trademark since 1958. The defendants have obtained the licence agreement from the parent company in the year 2016. She further contended that the respondent-plaintiff has produced only the certificate obtained from the competent authority, but they have not obtained any permission from the parent company. Without considering this aspect of the matter, the Trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction. Hence, she sought for allowing the appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff-company has obtained registration certificate from the competent authority in the year 2015, which is prior to the licence agreement obtained from the defendants. The plaintiff-company is the prior user of the trademark. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly granted an order of temporary injunction. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Since both the parties are claiming that they are the prior users of the trademark ‘THERELEK’, the Trial Court after hearing the arguments and considering the documents produced by the parties, has come to the conclusion that in respect of any heat treatment services is concerned, the plaintiff has a prima facie case and hence granted an order of temporary injunction.

The suit is now set down for evidence. Since exparte interim order was operating from 15.12.2020 and an order of temporary injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff, the only order that can be passed at this stage is to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

The suit is now set down for evidence. Since exparte interim order was operating from 15.12.2020 and an order of temporary injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff, the only order that can be passed at this stage is to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Parties are directed to co-operate for the early disposal of the suit.

It is made clear that the plaintiff shall go on with the matter without taking any adjournments.

In view of disposal of appeal, all pending I.As. are dismissed accordingly.