Establishments and Distinctions on Grant of Ad-Interim and Omnibus Injunctions

Abstract

The article expands on the topic by analysing two important judgements in which distinctions between interim injunctions and omnibus injunctions are stated. To prove and differentiate these terms two landmark judgments have been analysed in which these injunctions were issued. Injunctions in the case of trademark infringement in India, are granted in order to prevent violation or threatened violation of a legal right. Ad interim injunctions, also known as interim or temporary injunctions, are legal orders issued by a court that are meant to provide temporary relief or preserve the status quo until a final decision can be made on a matter. Recently, Delhi and Bombay high courts talked about the injunction grant, which is as discussed below. On the other hand Omnibus injunctions are legal orders issued by a court that are comprehensive and cover a wide range of actions or conduct by a party. They are typically used to prohibit or require certain behaviours or actions from a party in a comprehensive and all-encompassing manner, rather than addressing individual or specific issues separately. Omnibus injunctions are often employed in complex cases where multiple issues or actions need to be addressed, and a court wants to provide a comprehensive solution to prevent further harm or ensure compliance with certain obligations.

---

Corza International & Ors. Vs Future Bath Products Pvt Ltd & Anr.

The Delhi high court, on 12th January 2023, through the division bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Manmohan and Hon’ble Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presented a judgment mentioning the powers of the courts to provide ad-interim injunction in cases of trademark violation. The present petition was filed by the appellants, challenging the order passed by the single learned judge, Justice Navin Chawla, on 4th November 2022, granting an ad-interim injunction to the respondents. The learned counsel of the appellants contended that the decision is erred as both the trademarks in question, namely CORZA and CORSA, are not of distinct similarity, and their area of physical operation is also different. They argued that there is no question of loss of share of market customers. The learned counsel for appellants further submitted that the single judge committed a grave error by implementing section 28(3) and 32(2)(e) of the Trademark Act, 1999, as their mark CORZA is registered under class 19 category goods.

The Delhi HC delivered its judgment in agreement with the single learned judge and appreciated the structural, phonetic, and visual similarity of the two marks in question. They agreed with the prima facie discoveries of the single learned judge for every matter in question. The grounds of the initial suit, as filed by the current respondents before the court, were hence, proved to be true, and the decision of the single learned judge was recapitulated. The HC, lastly, citing the judgment of Raj Kumar Prasad and Another. V Abbott Healthcare (P) Ltd. 2014 stated that the courts are competent to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the marketing of such mark in question. The appeal was hence dismissed, and no interference with the impugned order was presented.

GoDaddy.com LLC and Anr. In Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aanit Awattam and Ors.

On 4th February 2023, the single judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Manish Pitale of Bombay high court recalled the ad-interim injunction on the order dated 29th November 2022. The order was a result of a suit filed by the plaintiff, i.e., “Swiggy,” for infringing their registered trademark by defendant No.’s 1 to 13. They further moved an application against GoDaddy.com LLC (defendant no. 15) and GoDaddy India Web Services Private Limited (defendant no. 16), both being the registrars of impugned domain names, to further suspend any impugned domain names and also not to register any domain with the mark “Swiggy” on it and with this pressing the demand to grant an ad-interim relief in terms of prayer mentioned in clause(e) and (g), the court then passed the order saying that the information sought by the plaintiff is already mentioned in the order dated 24th august which gave ex-parte ad-interim injunction to the plaintiff. The learned counsel from the applicant’s side argued that as the registration of a domain name is a fully automated process with no human intervention, it is not possible that the registration of a domain name similar to plaintiffs can be prevented, the most that the defendant can do is to suspend an existing registration. On this, counsel from the plaintiff’s side submitted that initiating a procedure that can detect the names that would infringe a registered trademark can definitely be done by the defendant, and they further argued that the only reason defendants were seeking recall of the order as they would falter on profit that will be generated by such infringements. The court considered this case from two aspects, one from technology, where it observed from the case of Snapdeal private limited Vs. GoDaddy.com LLC and others that an alternative algorithm needs to be used by the defendant to ensure compliance and other aspect being concerned to law where from the case HUL Vs. Endurance Domains Technology LLP and Others court observed that every time there is an infringement plaintiff has to get specific orders from the court. Thus the court recalled the order as it would have amounted to omnibus and global injunction.

Image Source: http://surl.li/hwwni

*This article is authored by Aditi Singh & Isha Arora, Students from Symbiosis Law School, Noida and reviewed by Suryatej Singh Tanwar, Student from Symbiosis Law School, Noida.