1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 526 OF 2003 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 500 OF 2003 IN SUIT NO. 550 OF 2003 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 219 OF 2009 IN APPEAL NO. 526 OF 2003 IN SUIT NO. 550 OF 2003 1. Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. ] a company incorporated under the ] Companies Act, 1956, ] having their principal place of ] business at 901, Yogesh Tower, ] Chikuwadi, Shimpoli, Borivili (W) ] Mumbai-400 092 ] 2. Dr.Pankaj Naram, ] residing at Bhadran Nagar, ] Cross Road No.2, ] Opp. Milap Theatre, ] Opp. S.V.Road, Malad (W) ] Mumbai-400 064 ] 3. Dr.(Mrs.)Smita Naram, ] residing at Bhadran Nagar, ] Cross Road No.2, ] Opp. Milap Theatre, ] Opp. S.V.Road, Malad (W) ] Mumbai-400 064 ]..Appellants (Ori.Plaintiffs) 2 Vs. 1. Hindustan Unilever Limited ] a Company incorporated under the ] Companies Act, 1956 having ] their registered Head Office at ] Hindustan Lever House, ] 165-166 Backbay Reclamation ] Bombay-400 020 ]..Respondent .... Mr.Rahul Chitnis along with Ms. Usha Chandrashekhar, Ms.Bijal Trivedi, Ms.Bhagwati Trivedi, Ms.Priyanka Kothari i/by Bhagwati and Co. for Appellants Dr.Virendra Tulzapurkar along with Mr.H.W.Kane, Mr.Sandeep Parikh, Ms.Hetal Thakkar i/by Crawford Bayley and Co. for Respondent .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 9th MARCH, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.] : 1 This appeal arises from an interlacutory order dated 21st/22nd April, 2003 thereby dismissing Notice of Motion No.500 of 2003 filed in Suit No. 550 of 2003 praying for an injunction restraining the defendants from selling their products like heir oil, shampoo, soap under the trademark “Ayush ” which according to the plaintiffs, are being sold under an almost identical trademark “Ayushakti ”. 3 2 Though the appeal was admitted on 30th June, 2003, the fact remains that from the date of the filing of the suit till this date, there is no injunction operating against the defendant-company which is now renamed as Hindustan Unilever Ltd. We have also gone through the reasoning set out by the learned trial Judge in support of his prima facie findings declining to pass an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs who are selling their product under an umbrella trademark of “Ayushakti ” since April, 1996, whereas, the defendant-company has taken the trademark of “Ayush ” from different companies/individuals. “Ayush ” which is bearing registration No. 472037/B in clause 3 is taken over of Jaylakshmi Oil and Chemical Industries Ltd. Andra Pradesh. “Ayush ” is taken over from Showel Pharmaceuticals. The third and fourth taking over of “Ayush ” trademark by the defendant are from M/s. Ajanta Pharma and Shri. Jatinder Sodi. As per the defendant, the applications of the last three companies were pending during the period from July 1984 to August, 1996 and in the search undertaken by the plaintiffs before they adopted the trademark “Ayushakti ” in April, 1996, these applications could not have escaped its attention. 3 Be that as it may, the fact remains that the suit is pending and there has been no order of temporary injunction against the defendant- 4 company during the last about seven years. It would be, therefore, appropriate that the pending suit is decided expeditiously provided the counsel from both sides extend their cooperation to the learned trial Judge. 4 In the premise, we request the learned trial Judge to give priority for the hearing of Suit No. 550 of 2003 so that it could be disposed off as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. The parties may apply for getting their evidence recorded through the Commissioner so that the trial in the suit may not be delayed. In case, hearing of the suit is delayed and is not disposed off expeditiously as stated hereinabove, it will be open to the appellants to move appropriate Motion for the revival of this appeal. Needless to mention that the suit will have to be decided on its own merits and without being influenced by the observations made either in the impugned order or in this order. 5 Save and except what is stated above, this appeal is hereby disposed off. Chamber Summons No. 219 of 2009 does not survive and is disposed off accordingly. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [ B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. ] 5