1988 PLP 1111 (CLC)

‑‑‑

0. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 & S. 96‑‑Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), S.10‑‑Trade mark‑‑Infringement‑‑Temporary injunction sought in suit involving infringement of trade mark‑‑Finding of Trial Court that in case any loss was suffered by petitioner on account of manufacturing and sale of goods by respondent under disputed trade mark, petitioner could be compensated monetarily and that such loss could not be described as irreparable, held, did not justify any interference by High Court in appeal. Aitzaz Ahsan for Appellant. Date of hearing: 18th November, 1987 This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated the 9th July, 1984, rejecting the appellant's application for issuance of temporary injunction pendente lite restraining the respondents from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in the electric fans bearing the mark 'Yunas National'. The appellant, Messrs Yunas Metal Works, Gujrat, is the proprietor of the registered trade mark 'YUNAS' in respect of electric fans and parts thereof. Respondent 1, Messrs Yunas Electrical Industries, Gujranwala, manufactures electric fans under the trade mark 'Yunas National'. The appellant brought suit for preventing respondent from manufacturing or selling the fans under the trade mark 'Yunas National' and injuncting respondents 2 and 3 from selling or dealing with the same. The appellant also asked for rendition of accounts touching manufacturing and sale of fans under the mark 'Yunas National' and claimed damages from the respondents. It averred that the mark 'Yunas National' so closely resembled its trade mark 'YUNAS' that it was likely to cause deception and confusion to the customers. Alongwith the plaint it presented application for grant of temporary injunction. The contesting respondent 1 vehemently opposed the application. The learned trial Court formed the view that the appellant had no prima facie case, the balance of convenience lay in favour of respondent 1 and the appellant could be said to suffer irreparable loss because it could be compensated while granting damages claimed by it in suit. Therefore, it rejected the application.

2. As the appellant has claimed damages for any loss suffered by him on account of manufacturing and sale of fans by the respondents the reasoning of the learned trial Court that it (appellant) could be compensated monetarily and that its loss could not be described as irreparable has some weight. In that view of the matter the impugned order does not demand any interference. The appeal is dismissed.

3. The learned counsel for the parties state that the trial of the suit has not progressed beyond the decision of the application for issuance of temporary injunction.. The suit requires disposal within the shortest possible time. The learned District Judge or the Additional District Judge, Lahore, seized with the trial of the suit is directed to give it priority over other cases, dispose it of within four months and report compliance to this Court. H. B. T./Y‑8/L Appeal dismissed.