Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and irreparable prejudice, justifying the interim injunction.

Summary

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., a long‑standing user of the registered trademark "Mahindra", sued Mahendra & Mahindra Paper Mills Ltd. for passing‑off and trademark infringement, seeking permanent and interim injunctions to stop the defendant from using the name "Mahendra & Mahendra". The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction, finding a prima facie case and likely irreparable prejudice, and the Division Bench upheld it. The defendant appealed, arguing that the case was not a trademark infringement, that the similarity of the marks was insufficient, and that the balance of convenience favored him as his business had not yet commenced. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case, the similarity of the marks was likely to deceive the public, and the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, thereby affirming the High Court's interim injunction. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case of passing‑off/trademark infringement justifying an interim injunction.
Whether the similarity between "Mahindra" and "Mahendra" is likely to cause deception or confusion among the public.
Whether the balance of convenience favours the plaintiff given that the defendant's business had not yet commenced.
Whether the High Court erred in granting the interim injunction.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 39 Rule 1
Copyright Act, 1957s. 55
Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958s. 105, s. 106

Subjects

trademark infringementpassing offinterim injunctionprima facie casebalance of convenienceTrade Marks Actgoodwillcorporate name similarityCivil Procedure Code

Judgment

MAHENDRAAND MAHENDRAPAPER MILLS LTD. A
v.
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD.

NOVEMBER 9, 2001

[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] B

Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder 39, Rule I.

Plaintiff-Company using registered trade mark.for a long time-D~fend
ant-Company subsequently using almost identical and deceptively similar
corporate na111e-lts business yet to commence-Suit.for if1:fringement of trade
c
mark-Grant of Interim injunction from using the name-Propriety of-Held,
order of interim injunction rightly passed since plaintiff-company established
a prima facie case that such user of name would affect the plaintiff-company
prejudicially in its business-Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958-Sec-
~ l~~IM D
Plaintiff-respondent filed suit against defendant-appellant seeking
decree of permanent injunction from using the name "Mahendra &
Mahendra" or any word deceptively similar as part of its corporate name
or trading style. Plaintiff-respondent also filed application seeking in-
E
terim order of injunction to the same effect. The case of the plaintiff
respondent was that it had been using the word "Mahindra" and
"Mahindra and Mahindra" since 1948 and the same were its registered
trade mark in respect of the goods in clause 12 of the Trade and Mer-
chandise Marks Act, 1958, which was popular in India and was associated
with the products and services of the plaintiff. In 1996 plaintiff came to F
know about the existence of the defendant and its corporate name which
was phonetically, visually and structually almost identical and decep-
tively similar to the names of the plaintiff company. The intention of the
defendant by the use of the said words was trading on the goodwill and
reputation of the plaintiff. G
Single Judge of High Court passed order of interim injunction
holding that the plaintiff had established a prinw facie case. Appeal
against the same was summarily dismissed by the Division Bench.

In appeal to this Court, Respondent-plaintiff contended that it had H
225
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A successfully established a strong prima facie case in its favour and denial of
order of interim injunction would result in irreparable loss and injury to·
its business, while the business activity of appellant-defendant was yet to
commence.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD : 1.1. The Trial Court rightly held that the plaintiff has
established a primafacie case and irreparable prejudice in its favour which
calls for passing an order of interim injuntion restraining the defendant-
company which is yet to commence its business from utilising the name
C "Mahendra" or "Mahendra & Mahendra" for the purpose of its trade and
business. [241-G-H]

1.2. Plaintiff has been using the word "Mahindra" and "Mahindra &
Mahindra" in its companies/business concerns for a long span of time ·
extending over five decades. The name has acquired a distinctiveness and
D a secondary meaning in the business or trade circles. People have come to
associate the name "Mahindra" with a certain standard of goods and
services. Any attempt by another person to nse the name in business and
trade circles is likely to and in all probability will create an impression
that it has connection with the plaintiffs' group of companies. Such user
E may also affect the plaintiff prejudicially in its business and trading
activities. [241-D-F]

Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., [1960) 1
SCR 968; Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd., [1990) Supp. SCC 727;
S.M. Dyectem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd., [2000) 5 SCC 573; Cadila Health
F Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [2001) 5 SCC 73; Dunder Parmanand
La/wani & Ors. v. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR (1969) Bombay 24 (V 56C 5);
Batra India Ltd. v. Mis. Pyare lal & Co., AIR (1985) Allahabad 242 and
Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. & Ors.,
AIR (1996) Bombay 149, referred to.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7805 of 200 I.

From the ludgment and Order dated 2.12.98 of the Bombay High Court
in CAN. No. 1058 of 1998.

H P.N. Misra, K.L. Janjani and Pankaj Kumar Singh for the Appellant.
MAHENORA AND MAHEl\'DRAPAPAER MILLS LTD.1·. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. [MOHAPATRA,J.] 227

R.F. Nariman, Nikhilesh Panchal, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agarwal, Manu A
Krishnan, Alok Kumar Agarwal and E.C. Agrawala for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted.
B
The interim order passed by the learned single Judge of the Bombay
High Court injuncting the defendant from using the name "Mahendra &
Mahendra" in his business establishment, which order was confirmed by the
Division Bench of the Court, is under challenged in this appeal filed by the
defendant.
c
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., the respondent herein, instituted a Suit No.
4007 of 1998 in the Bombay High Court seeking a decree of permanent
injunction against Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd., the appellant
herein, restraining it from using in any manner as a part of its corporate name
or trading style the words "Mahendra & Mahendra" or any word which is
D
deceptively similar to "Mahindra" and/or 'Mahindra & Mahindra". In the said
suit the plaintiff filed an application seeking an interim order of injunction
against the defendant on similar terms.

The case of the plaintiff, sans unnecessary details, is that it is a 'Com-
pany' incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and E
is an existing company under the Companies Act, 1956. It was incorporated
in October, 1945 with the name "Mahendra and Mohammed Ltd.". which was
subsequently changed to "Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd." on 13th January,
1948. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said company is a flagship company
of Mahindra group of companies in which are included 15 other companies,
namely : F

I. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

2. Mahindra Exports Ltd.

3. Mahindra Steel Services Centre Ltd.
G
4. Mahindra Fort India Ltd.

5. Mahindra Applied Systems Technology Ltd.

6. Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd.

7. Mahindra Engineering & Chemical Products Ltd. H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A 8. Mahindra Network Services Ltd.

9. Mahindra Information Technology Systems Ltd.

10. Mahindra Realty and Infrastructure Development Ltd.

11. Mahindra USA Inc. USA
B 12. Mahindra Hellenic Auto Industries S.A. Greece.

13. Mahindra British Telecom Ltd.

14. Mahindra Holdings & Finance Ltd.

15. Mahindra Acres Consulting Engineering Ltd.
c
The further case of the plaintiff is that the word "Mahindra" is i~s
registered trade mark bearing Registration No. 338997, in respect of the goods
in Class 12 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred
to as "the Act') According to the plaintiff, the word "Mahindra" is not only
D a registered trade mark but forms the dominant and significant part of the
plaintiff and other companies of the group. The companies carrying the name
"Mahindra" are engaged in industrial and trading activities in multiple fields
such as manufacture of cars, jeeps, tractors, motor spare parts, farming
equipments, chemical, hotels, real estate, exports, computer software and
computer systems etc. The annual turnover of the plaintiff and some of its
E
group companies exceeds Rs. 3,000 crores. The annual expenditure for ad-
vertisements and market development for sales promotion by the plaintiff and
its group of companies is about Rs. 9 crores. The plaintiff has averred that
the name and trade mark of "Mahindra" is extremely popular in India and is
associated with the products and services of the plaintiff. It was further
F averred that the Mahindra group of companies have a nation-wide network
of selling and distributing agents. The name and trade mark "Mahindra" is
prominently used and displayed on all its products as also promotional ma-
terials. On account of high quality of the products manufactured and sold by
the plaintiff, as also high quality of products and services of other group
G companies, the plaintiff asserts, that the name and trade mark of "Mahindra"
have come to be known exclusively with the plaintiff and its group of
companies and have acquired tremendous reputation and goodwill among
members of public throughout the world including India. The further case
pleaded by the plaintiff is that in or about August, 1996, it came across a
H prospectus of the defendant in respect of its public issue and for the first time
MAHENDRAANDMAHENDRA PAPAERMILLS LTD. v. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. [MOHAPATRA,J.] 229
the plaintiff then came to know about the existence of the defendant and its A
corporate name. The name of the defendant is almost the same as that of the
plaintiff with the only difference in spelling by substituting 'e' for 'i' in
'Mahindra'. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the words are phonetically,
visually and structurally almost identical and in any event deceptively similar.
In the prospectus of the defendant the words "Mahendra and Mahendra" are B
more prominently written than the rest of the names. According to the

- plaintiff the defendant wishes and intends to fraudulently and wrongfully
deceive members of the public into believing that the defendant is the asso-
ciate of the plaintiff or in some way connected with the plaintiff and to trade
on the reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff apprehends that by the use of
name/words; deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's name as its corporate
c
name the intention of the defendant is to pass-off or likely to pass-off and to
enable others to pass-off its business and products as those of the plaintiff. It
is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant by use of the said words is
trading on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff.
D
The plaintiff in the notice issued on 28th August, 1996 had called upon
the defendant to change its name. It had also moved the securities & Exchange
Board of India and various stock exchanges in the country drawing their
attention to the fact that the defendant was using a deceptively similar
corporate name as that of the plaintiff and to take appropriate action against E
the defendant. The defendant, in its reply to the said notice, took the plea that
it has used the name of "Mahendra" honestly and the allegations made by the
plaintiff that it had dishonestly adopted the said name and sty le is miscon-
ceived. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit.

The defendant, the appellant herein, contested the notice by filing a reply F
affidavit, filed by one Mulchand alias Mahendra G. Parwani in which it was
stated inter alia that the deponent is better known as "Mahendrabhai" in the
trade circle and he resides in "Mahendra House" named after him. He has been
filing income returns in the name of Mahendra G. Parwani. In the year 1974
he stated his sole proprietary business in Prantija District of Gujarat in the name G
of 'Mahindra Radio House'. After about four yeas, he along with his two
brothers started a partnership firm in the name of 'Mahendra & Mahendra
Seeds Company'. According to the deponent, his nephew's name is also
'Mahendra' and that is how the partnership firm came to be named as Mahendra
& Mahendra Seeds Company. The defendant further averred that on !st of H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A January, 1982 the said partnership of Mahendra & Mahendra Seeds Company
was incorporated as Private Limited Company in the name of 'Mahendra &
Mahendra Seeds Private Limited" having its office at 7, Ellora Commercial
Centre, Opposite GPO, Ahmedabad. Another proprietary firm by the name
'Mahendra Music & Electronics" was started by the defendant's family in the
B year 1983 and the same was registered under the Sales Tax Act also. It is the
further case of the defendant that in the year 1994 the said Mulchand (alias
Mahendrabhai G. Parwani) along with his brothers Trikambhai Parvani and
Dayalbhai Parwani, incorporated a company by the name of 'Mahendra &
Mahendra Paper Mills Limited'. According to the defendant, the words
-
C 'Mahendra & Mahendra' was a continuation of their business name which they
have been using continuously for various businesses since the year 1974. That
the public issue was opened on 25. 7.1996 and the same remained open till
6.8.1996 and despite wide advertisement by the defendant and best efforts, the
defendant could not even manage to get 100% subscription and the allegation
by the plaintiff .that defendant has been using plaintiff's goodwill is wholly
D
misconceived. The defendant also stated that the name 'Mahendra' is a house-
hold name in Gujarat and there are several businesses being carried on in the
said name through out Gujarat. The defendant further stated that its products'
arc, in no way similar to the products and businesses of the plaintiff. The
business carried on by the defendant does not overlap with the business of any
E of the companies enlisted by the plaintiff. The defendant pleads that it has a
reputation of its own in the name of 'Mahendra & Mahendra' and cannot derive
any benefit by the name which is alleged to be similar to that of the piaintiff.
The assertion of the plaintiff that the trade mark 'Mahindra' and/or 'Mahindra
& Mahindra' have come to be identified with the plaintiff or the plaintiff's
F group of companies in any manner, has been denied by the defendant. The
defendant has also denied that the name of its company cannot be said to be
deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. The plea of passing-off or likelihood
of passing-of of trade or business of the plaintiff has been denied. The defend-
ant has also set up the plea that the balance of convenience is not in favour of
G the plaintiff nor the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss in case the injunction
is granted.

On consideration of the petition for interim injunction filed by the plain-
tiff, the learned single Judge in paragraph 14 of his order issued the following
H directions :

I
~
MAHENDRAAND MAHENDRA PAPAER MILLS LTD. 1·. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. [MOHAPATRA,J.] 231

"Accordingly, during the pendency of the suit interim injunction in A
terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) shall remain operative Prayer (a), (b)
and (c) read thus :

(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit, Defendant
by itself, its servants, its agents or otherwise howsoever be retrained
B
by an Order of temporary injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any
manner using as a part of its corporate name or trading style the words
"Mahendra and Mahendra" or any word (s) which are deceiptively
similar to "Mahindera" and/or "Mahindra and Mahindra" so as to pass
off or to enable others to pass off the business and/or services of the
Defendant as those of the Plaintiffs or as emanating from or affiliated c
or in some way connected with the Plaintiffs.

(b) That pending that hearing and final disposal of this suit, the
Defendant by itself, its servants, or otherwise howsoever be retrained
by an Order of temporary injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any D
manner using in relation to its products the words "Mahendra and
Mahendra" or any word(s) which ar deceptively similar to "Mahindra
and/or "Mahindra and Mahindra" so as to pass off or to enable others
to pass off the business and/or services of the Defendant as ti1ose of
the Plaintiffs or as emanating from or affiliated or in some way
E
connected with the Plaintiffs.

(c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit, the Defend-
ant by itself, its servants, its agents or otherwise howsoever be re-
strained by an Order of temporary injunction from in any manner
infringing the Plaintiff's registered Trade Mark "Mahindra" under F
Registration No. 338997 by using the impugned word/mark "Mahendra"
and/or "Mahendra and Mahendra" or any word/s or mark deceptively
similar to the Plaintiff registered Trade Marks."

The appeal filed by the defendant against the said order, Appeal No. G
1058 of 1998, was summarily dismissed by the Division Bench of the High
Court vide its order dated 2nd December, 1998. The relevant portion of the
order reads :
I
"In our view, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge
does not call for any interference. It is found that the Respondents are H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A having registered trade mark of Mahindra & Mahindra Company. The
appellants want to use the said trade mark by name Mahendra &
Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd., for which the company was incorporated
in the year 1994. However, before the learned Single Judge, the
appellants have failed to produce any material on record to show to
B what extent the appellants were doing business.

Further, considering the reasons recorded by the learned Single
Judge, this appeal is dismissed ..... "

C Hence, this appeal by the defendant.

The main thrust of the submissions of Shri P.N. Misra, learned counsel
for the appellant, was that the present case is not an action for infringement of
trade mark but it is an action in passing-off the business and services. In the
absence of any similarity of the goods manufactured or sold by the parties the
D
test of deception or confusion amongst the consumers does not arise. Accord-
ing to Shri Misra, the action in passing-off is not to be considered in the abstract
sense; it has to be judged on the facts and circumstances of the case. The
learned counsel contended that the defendant has been doing business since
1974 using the trade name "Mahendra" in a wide range of products. Therefore,
E the claim of exclusive use of the name made by the plaintiff does not arise, at
least not at the interlocutory stage, as it depends on evidence to be led in the
suit. The learned counsel further submitted that while judging the plea of
passing-off, the test to be applied is probability and not mere possibility of
e•:mfusion or deception. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
F learned senior counsel submitted that grant of interim injunction in favour of
the plaintiff was not warranted; the Division Bench of the High Court should
have set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and vacated the
interim order of injunction.

G Per contra, Shri R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the respondent,
contended that the order of interim injunction passed by the learned single
Judge is based on well recognised principles of law which have been aptly
applied to the case in hand. Shri Nariman further contended that on a bare
perusal of the prospectus issued by Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd.
H it is manifest that the defendant is trying to utilise the tremendous popularity
MAHENDRA AND MAHENORA PAPAER MILLS LTD. v. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. (MOHAPATRA, J.J 233
and goodwill associated with the plaintiff's name 'Mahindra and Mahindra' in A
the trade circles. According to him, any man of average intelligence and
imperfect recollection is likely to get an impression that the defendant is one
of the associated companies of the 'Mahindra and Mahindra" group. The
further contention of the learned counsel wa that whatever amount was
collected by the defendant from sale of shares of the company to investors B
was due to the deceptively similar name given to the defendant company. It
was the further submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the
business activity of the defendant company has not yet commenced. The
learned counsel contended that the plaintiff successfully established a strong
primafacie case in its favour and in the circumstances denial of order of interim
injunction will result in irreparable loss and injury in its trade and business. In
c
the submission of Shri Nariman, the learned single Judge rightly passed the
order of interim injunction and the Division Bench was justified in declining
to interfere with the said order.

Jn Section 105 clauses(c) of the Act it is laid down, inter alia, that no D
suit for passing-off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trade mark
which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark,
whether registered or unregistered, shall be instituted in any court inferior to
a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.

Section 106 in which is enumerated the relief available in an action for E
infringement or for passing-off provides in clause (c) sub-section (2) that :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I), the Court
shall not grant relief by way of damages (other than nominal damages)
or an account of profits in any case - F
xxx xxx xxx

(c) where in a suit for passing off the defendant satisfies the Court-

(i) that at the time he commenced to use the trade mark complained
G
of in the suit he was unaware and had no reasonable ground for
believing that the trade mark of the plaintiff was in use; and

(ii) that when he became aware of the existence and nature of the
plaintiff's trade mark, he forthwith ceased to use the trade mark
complained of." H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A The question that arises for determination in this cases is, whether on the
facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court committed an error in
granting the plaintiff's prayer for interim injunction?

This question has been considered by different High Courts and this·
B Court in umpteen cases from time to time. On analysis of the principles laid
down in the decisions, certain recognised parameters relating to the matter have
·emerged. Without intending to be exhaustive some of the principles which are
accepted as well settled may be stated thus; that whether there is a likelihood
of deception or confusion arising in a matter for decision by the Court, and no
witness is entitled to say whether the mark is likely to deceive or to cause
c confusion; that all factors which are likely to create or allay deception or
confusion must be considered in combination; that broadly speaking, factors
creating confusion would be, for example, the nature of the market itself, the
class of customers, the extent of the reputation, the trade channels, the existence
of any connection in course of trade, and others.
D
This Court, in the case of Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food
Products Ltd., [1960] I SCR 968, observed that "the question whether two
competing marks are so sinlilar as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion
is one of first impression and it is for the court to decide it. The question has
E to be approached from the point qf view qf a man of average intelligence and
impetfect recollection. To such a man the overall structural and phonetic
similarity of the two marks Gluvita and Glucovita is like to deceive or to cause
confusion. In deciding whether two marks are so similar as to be likely to
deceive or cause confusion the similarity of idea is a relevant consideration"
This Court further observed that "in order that a trade mark may acquire a
F
reputation among buyers, it is not necessary that they should know who the
manufacturer of the goods is. It is no answer to an opposition to an application
for registration to say that there is a number of marks having one or more
common features which occur in the proposed mark unless it is proved that
these marks had by user acquired a reputation in the market".
G
(Emphasis supplied)

In the case of Wandor Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd., [1990] Supp.
sec 727' a bench of three learned Judges considered the question of grant of
H interlocutory injunction under Order 39 Rule I Code of Civil Procedure in a
MAHENDRA AND MAHENDRA PAPAER MILLS LTD. 1•. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. [MOHAPATRA, J.] 235
case under Section 29(2) of the Act and Section 55 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 A
and held as follows :

"Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage
when the existence of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its
alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncer-
tain till they are established at the trial on evidence. The court, at this
B
stage, acts on certain well settled principles of administration of this
form of interlocutory remedy which is both temporary and discretion-
ary. The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated.

" ...... is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights C
for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages
recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour
at the trial. The need.for such protection must be weighed against the
corresponding need of the d~fendant to be protected against injury
resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own D
legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The
court must weigh one need against another and determine where the
'balance o..f convenience' lies."

The interlocutory remedy is intended to preserve in status quo, the
rights of parties which may appear of a prima .facie case. The court E
also, in restraining a defendant from exercising what he considers his
legal right but what the plaintiff would like to be prevented, puts into
the scales, as a relevant consideration whether the defendant has yet
to commence his enterprise or whether he has already been doing so
in which latter case considerations somewhat different from those p
that apply to a case where the defendant is yet to commence his
enterprise, are attracted.

xxx xxx xxx

The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of G
discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court
will not inter,fere ivith the exercise of discretion except ivhere the
dh;cretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or
capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled
principles of lan1 regulating grant or refusal o.f interlocutory it~iunc- H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A lions. An appeal against exen:ise of discretion is said to be an appeal
on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek
to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court
below !f the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the
material. The appellate court would normally not be just!fied in
B inteifering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the
ground that if it had considered the mailer at the trial stage it would
have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exer-
cised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that
the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify
interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring
c to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd.
v. Pothan Joseph, [1960] 3 SCR 713 :

. " ....... These principles are well established, but as has been observed
by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanton, (1942) AC
D 130. ' .... the Jaw as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made
by a judge below is the exercise of his discretion is well established,
and any difficulty that arises in due only to the application of well
settled principles in an individual case"

(Emphasis supplied)
E
In the case of S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadubry (India) Ltd., [2000] 5 SCC
573, this Court formulated the point whether the plaintiff had made out a case
for grant of temporary injunction treating the suit as a "passing-off' action,
the relative strength of the case was in the plaintiff's favour? Referring to a
p number of decisions of this Court and Courts in England, this Court made the
following observations:

"Here the point is in relation to relative strength of the parties on the
question of "passing off'. As discussed under Point 5, the proof of
resemblance or similarity in case of passing of and infringement are
G different. In a passing-off action, additions, get-up or trade-dress
might be relevant to enable the d4endant to escape. In National
Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd., AIR (1948)
Mad. 481, the passing-off action failed. But thereafter James Chadwick
Co. Succeeded in an appeal arising out of the registration proceedings
H and the said judgment was confirmed by this Court in National Sewing
MAHENQRAANDMAHENDRA PAPAER MILLS LTD. 1•. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. [MOHAPATRA, J.J 237
Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd., AIR (1953) SC 357. A
It was held that the judgment in the passing-off case could not be relied
upon by the opposite side in latter registration proceedings."

In the same tone, Halsbury (Trade Marks, 4th Edn., 1984, Vol. 48
para 187) says that in a passing-off action the
B
"degree of similarity of the name, mark or other features con-
cerned is important but not necessarily decisive so that an action for
infringement of a registered trade mark may succeed on the same facts
where a passing-off action fails or vice versa"

• As to vice versa, Kerly says (*para 16.12), an infringement action may
fail where the plaintiff cannot prove registration or that its registration
c

extends to the goods or to all the goods in question or because the
registration is invalid and yet the plaintiff may show that by imitating
the mark or otherwise, the defendant has done what is calculated to D
pass off his goods as those of the plaintiff.

In Schweppes Ltd. v. Gibbens, [1905] 22 RPC 601 (HL), Lord Halsbury
said, while dealing with a passing-qff action that "the whole question
in these cases is whether the thing - taken in its entirety, looking at the E
whole thing - is such that in the ordinary course qfthings a person with
reasonable comprehension and with proper insight would be deceived."

(Emphasis supplied)

In a recent decision in the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila
F
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [2001] 5 SCC 73, a bench of three learned Judges,
summed up the position of law regarding tests to determine a passing off action,
with the following observations :

"We are unable to agree with the aforesaid observations in Dychem G
case, [2000] 5 SCC 573. As far as this Court is concerned, the decisions
in the last four decades have clearly laid down that what has to be seen
in the case of a passing-off action is the similarity between the com-
peting marks and to determine whether there is likelihood qf deception
or causing confusion. This is evident from the decisions of this Court H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A in the cases of National Sewing Thread Co. Lid. case, AIR (1953) SC
35, Corn Products Refining Co. case AIR (1960) SC 142. Amritdhara
Phamzacy Case AIR (1963) SC 449, Durga Dutta Sharma case AIR
1965 SC 980, and Hoffman-La Roche & Co. Ltd. case [1969] 2 SCC
716. Having come to the conclusion, in our opinion incorrectly, that
B the difference in essential features is relevant, this Court in Dyechem
case sought to examine the difference in the two marks "PIKNIK" and
PICNIC". It applied three tests, they being : (I) is there any special ~-

aspect of the common feature which has been copied? (2) mode in
which the parts are put together differently i.e. whether dissimilarity
i
c of the part or parts is enough to inake the whole thing dissimilar, and
(3) whether, when there are common elements, should one not pay 1
more regard to the parts which are not common, while at the same time
not disregarding the common parts? In examining the marks, keeping
the aforesaid three .tests in mind, it came to the conclusion, seeing the
manner in which the two words were written and t!)e peculiarity of the
D
script and concluded (at SCC p. 597, para 39) that "the above three
dissimilarities have to be given more importance than the phonetic
similarity or the similarity in the use of the word PICNIC for PIKNIK."

xxx xxx xxx
E
"Broadly stated, in an action for passing-off ?n the basis of unregis-
tered trade mark generally of deciding the question of deceptive
similarity the following factors are to be considered :

F (a) The nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are word marks
or label marks or composite marks i.e. both words and label
works.

(b) The degree of resembleness between the marks, phonetically
similar and hence similar in idea. Iii
G
(c) The nature of the goods in respect of which they are used as trade
marks.

(d) The similarity in the nature, character and performance of the
H goods of the rival traders.
MAHE NORA AND MAHENDRA PAPAER MILLS LTD. r>. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. [MOHAPATRA, J.] 239

(e) The class of purchasers who ar likely to buy the goods bearing A
the marks they require, on their education and intelligence and
a degree of care they are likely to exercise in purchasing and/or
using the goods.

(f) The mode of purchasing the goods or placing orders for the B
goods.

(g) A~y other surrounding circumstances which may be relevant in
the extent of dissimilarity between the competing marks.

Weightage to be given to each of the aforesaid factors depending upon
c
facts of each case and the same weightage cannot be given to each
factor in every case.

The trial court will now decide the suit keeping in view the
observations made in this judgment. No order as to costs. Appeal D
disposed of."

The Bombay High Court in Sunder Parmanand Lalwani and Ors. v.
Caltex (India) ltd., AIR (1969) Bombay 24 (V 56 C 5), held that a large
number of persons, if they saw or heard about the mark "Caltex" in connection E
with the applicant's watches, would be led to think that the Watches were in
some way connected with the opponents who were dealing in petrol and
various oil products with the Caltex Mark, or they would at least wonder
whether they were in any way connected with the opponents'. The Court
considered the factors which tend to show that there was a likelihood of F
creating deception or confusion.

In the case of Bara India Limited v. Mis. Pyare Lal & Co., AIR ( 1985)
ALLAHABAD 242, considering the plea of passing-off or enabling others to
pass-off mattresses, sofa cushions and other articles associating them with the
G
name of 'Bata' in any manner or form, held that "the plaintiffs had cause of
action for instituting the proceedings for passing off. The plaintiff had made
out a case of issuance of an interim order of injunction in respect of the user
of the name "Bata" to any of their products by the defendants" The High Court
further observed "that the word "Bata" was well known in the market and the
user of such a name is likely to cause not only deception in the mind of an H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A ordinary customer but may also cause injury to the plaintiff-company. The fact
that the plaintiff was not producing foam was not enough to hold that there
could be no passing off action in respect of the use of the name 'Bata' to the .
products marketed by the defendants is indicative of their intent".

B Bombay High Court in the case of Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. and
Anr. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. and Ors., AIR (1996) Bombay 149, consid-
ered the scope of granting injunction in a suit for infringement of a trade mark
under Section 106 of the Act by the use of the mark 'Kirloskar', held :

c "The principle of balance of convenience applies when the scales are
evenly balanced. The existence of !st Appellant in each appeal is very
recent whereas the existence of the Respondents belonging to 'Kirloskar'
Group of Companies' has been for over a period of 50 years. On their
own showing, the Appellants are not using the word 'Kirloskar' as
Trade Mark but as part of trading style whereas the Respondents have
D
not only acquired distinctiveness and goodwill in the word 'Kirloskar'
but it is even the registered Trade Mark of the !st Respondent. There
is sufficient evidence on record to show that the huge business is
carried by 'Kirloskar Group of Companies'. There is nothing on record
to show that extent of the business of the Appellants. The 2nd Appei-· ·
E !ant has throughout been aware about the business reputation of the
Respondents and efforts of the Respondents in protecting their rights
in the trade marks as also of preventing others to use the word
'Kirloskar' as a part of the trading name or trading style. By grant of
the interim injunction in favour of the Respondents, the Appellants are
F not prevented from canying on business without the word 'kirloskar'
forming part of the corporate name of the I st Appellant in each Appeal.
In the facts of the case, the Respondents' reputation is likely to be
adversely affected if the Appellants are not prevented from using
names of the I st Appellant in each appeal. In the facts of the case, the
G balance of convenience is not in favour of the Appellants.

xxx xxx xxx

.......... The real question in each case is whether there is as a result of
H misrepresentation a real likelihood of confusion or deception of the
MAHENDRA AND MAHENDRA PAPAER MILLS LTD. 11• MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTO. [MOHAPATRA, J.J 241

public and consequent damage to the plaintiff. The focus is shifted A
from the external objective test of making compatision of activities of
parties to the state of mind of public in deciding whether it will be
confused. With the passage of time and reputation acquired, the trade
mark 'Kirloskar' has acquired the secondary meaning and has become
almost a household word. The judments relied upon by Mr. Kane B
pertain to the cases of one type of business and not where variety of
businesses have been carrioo by the plaintiff and defendant as in the
instant case. The business activities of the Respondents vary from pin
to piano as borne out from the object clauses of the Memorandums of
Association of the Respondents. The Appellants have still to com-
mence their business activities but as mentioned in the Memorandums
c
of Association of !st Appellant in each appeal, some of the object
clauses therein overlap with the activities of Respondents and more
particularly of Respondents Nos. 6 and 7."

Judging the case in hand on touchstone of the principles laid down in D
the aforementioned decided cases, it is clear that the plaintiff has been using
the word "Mahindra" and "Mahmdra & Mahindra" in its companies/business
concerns for a long span of time extending over five decades. The name has
acquired a distinctiveness and a secondary meaning in the business or trade
circles. People have come to associate the name 'Mahindra' with a certain E
standard of goods and services. Any attempt by another person to use the
name in business and trade circles is likely to and in probability will create
an impression of a connection with the plaintiffs' group of companies. Such
user may also effect plaintiff prejudicially in its business and trading activi-
ties. Undoubtedly, the question whether the plaintiffs' claim of passing-off F
action' against the defendant will be accepted or not has to be decided by the
Court after evidence is led in the suit. Even so for the limited purpose of
considering the prayer for interlocutory injunction which is intended for
maintenance of status quo, the trial Court rightly held that the plaintiff has
established a prima .facie case and irreparable prejudice in its favour which G
calls for passing an order of interim injunction restraining the defendant-
company which is yet to commence its business from utilising the name of
'Mahendra' or 'Mahendra & Mahendra' for the purpose of its trade and
business. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be faulted
for confirming the order of injunction passed by the learned single Judge. H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A On the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs and for the reasons
noted therein, the orders passed by the High Court do not call for interference.
It is needless to say that the observations made in this judgment are only in
relation to the interim order. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Hearing fee assessed at Rs. 15,000.
B K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.