Court Dismisses Appeal by Eternal Limited Over Trademark Injunction, Directs Recourse Through Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court upheld a temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court in favor of Eternl Resilienttech Private Limited against Eternal Limited, formerly known as Zomato Limited, over trademark infringement issues. The case, presided over by Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, involved a dispute regarding the use of the name "Eternal," which the plaintiff claimed was deceptively similar to their registered trademark "Eternl."
The judgment, delivered on June 22, 2026, addressed the appellant's challenge to an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. The Trial Court had restrained Eternal Limited from using the disputed trademark, citing potential irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business reputation.
Eternal Limited contended that the injunction was granted without sufficient reasoning and in violation of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, which requires the court to provide reasons for dispensing notice before granting such orders. However, the High Court clarified that the Trial Court had indeed considered the urgency and the prima facie evidence before granting the injunction, thus fulfilling the requirement of judicial discretion.
The High Court emphasized that in cases of trademark infringement, delay in filing suit does not negate the need for an injunction, as infringement constitutes a continuous wrong. Justice Sanjeevkumar highlighted that the remedy for the appellant lies in filing an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC to vacate the injunction, rather than appealing the adequacy of the reasons provided.
This ruling underscores the court's approach to protecting trademark rights and the balance of convenience and irreparable harm in intellectual property disputes. The decision also delineates the procedural avenues available for challenging temporary injunctions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to prescribed legal remedies.
Bottom line:-
Trademark law - An ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction can be granted if the Trial Court finds prima facie evidence of trademark infringement, balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff, and potential irreparable harm to the plaintiff. Mere insufficiency in the quantum of reasons assigned in such orders cannot be a ground for appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 3, 4; Order XLIII Rule 1; Section 104, Trademark law
Eternal Limited v. Eternl Resilienttech Private Limited, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2935817
