IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 FAO.No. 119 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/01/2008 IN IA 277/2007 IN OS.1/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT:PETITIONER:PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------------------- ELBAIK FOOD SYSTEMS CO. S.A 69,BOULEVARD DE LA PETRUSSE L-2320,LUXEMBOURG THRUGH ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR.KHALID MOHAMMED KHALID ODEH, S/O.MOHAMMED KHALID A JORDANIAN NATIONAL, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT HL ARCADE 3RD FLOOR,PLOT NO.14, SECTOR-5(MLU) ABOVE UTI BANK,DWARAKA,NEW DELHI-110 075. BY SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ, SRI.JOHN MATHEW. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:DEFENDANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- MR.MAIDEEN KUTTY, MANKARATHODI HOUSE, EDAPALAYAM,PATTERKADU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,KERALA. BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR, SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN, THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O.119 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The plaintiff in a suit under the Trademarks Act, 1999 has filed this appeal against an interlocutory order refusing to grant temporary injunction. The suit was filed in 2007. 2.We notice that no interim orders were issued from this Court, though this appeal was admitted on 13.6.2008. Being a matter relatable to the trademarks, the Court has to expedite disposal of the same in the most expeditious manner. 3.The appeal in hand raises different questions of law and facts, including a comparative evaluation FAO119/08 -: 2 :- of the trademarks of the plaintiff and the defendant. 4.We have heard the learned counsel on either side on the various aspects of the matter, including on a comparative evaluation of the trademarks as also the different yardsticks on which a trademark case should be decided. We are, however, persuaded to think that it would be inappropriate for us to finally speak on the correctness or otherwise of the different contentions raised by either side because the parties are proceeding to have the trial of the suit which is ripe for such procedure. Under such circumstances, we are clear in our mind that it may be improper for us to express anything on merits, though we should necessarily caution the court below to dissuade itself from treating the impugned order as final for any purpose. Under the aforesaid circumstances, while refusing to interfere with the impugned order, we direct FAO119/08 -: 3 :- that the court below will expedite the trial and have the matter disposed of finally, untrammelled by anything stated in the impugned order, within a period of six months from now. It is further ordered that taking into consideration the fact that this appeal had been pending till now, the court below will give sufficient opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. The appeal ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/0406