IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 FAO.No. 79 of 2010() ----------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/12/2009 IN IA 5628/09 IN OS.29/2009 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------------------------- M/S. SOUTHERN SEAS EDUCATION, ROOM NO.32(2/9), 2ND FLOOR, PALA MUNICIPAL COMPLEX BUILDING, PALA MAIN ROAD, PALA-686575, REP. BY ITS MANAGER-MS.AMBILI BHASKAR. BY ADVS. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.VIZZY GEORGE KOKKAT SMT.MOLLY KOSHY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.SOUTHERN OVERSEAS EDUCATION, CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. CHAMMANY TOWERS, KALOOR, KOCHI, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REJIMON PROTHASIS. BY ADV. SRI.RAMAN KARTHA THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: AMG P. BHAVADASAN,J. ------------------------------------- F.A O No. 79 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 08-12-2009 in IA No.5628 in O.S No.29/2009 passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam the petitioner/plaintiff has come up in appeal. 2. The suit is related to the infringing of their trade mark namely 'Southern Seas Education'. The defendant was running similar business under the name and style 'Southern Overseas Education Consultants (P) Ltd. 3. The petitioner firm was incorporated in the year 1998 and since then it is providing consultancy services in the education field. He claimed that he has considerable goodwill and reputation in the field. They have got a trade mark registration in July 2009. They came to know about another consultancy service by name 'Southern Overseas Education Consultants (P) Ltd. run by some persons. The plaintiff would say that his trade mark has achieved distinctiveness and trade mark of the defendant has deceptive similarly to that of the plaintiff. It causes considerable injury, harassment and loss to the plaintiff. On the basis of these contentions, the suit was laid F.A.O No.79/2010. -2- 4. The defendant resisted the suit by pointing out various contentions, which are not very relevant for the present purpose. 5. It appears that IA No.5628/2009 was filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction restraining the respondent from infringing the petitioner's registered trade mark. That was resisted by the respondent. The lower court dismissed the petition mainly on two grounds namely : (1) there is no chance for confusion and (2) the two names are distinctive and if the plaintiff has any grievance, he can approach the Company Law Board. Accordingly I.A was dismissed. This appeal is filed challenging the same. 6. At the time when the matter came up for consideration, on considering the nature of the issues involved in the case, it was felt that the suit shall be directed to be disposed of. Learned counsel for the appellant states that while declining interim injunction, the court below was not justified in holding that appropriate remedy is to approach the Company Law Board. It appears to be correct. That finding has to be vacated. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to grant of interim order in such matters. F.A.O No.79/2010. -3- 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is felt that it is only appropriate to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 8. While setting aside the impugned order, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment untrammeled by any of the observation made in this judgment or in the impugned order. F.A.O is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge