Injunction exception for trademark use does not authorize the mark's adoption as a corporate name.

The Plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement regarding the mark ‘SUJATA’.

On 07.02.2020, the Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the mark ‘SUJATA’ in terms of the prayer in paragraph 36 of the injunction application.

Paragraph 36 specifically sought to restrain the use of the mark independently or as part of a corporate name, domain name, or email address.

On 09.09.2020, the Court modified the interim order, allowing the Defendants to manufacture and sell water filters, purifiers, and RO systems under the mark ‘SUJATA’ while maintaining the injunction for other products in terms of the original prayer.

In 2026, Defendant No. 1 filed I.A. 7185/2026 under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking clarification that the permission to use the mark for specific products also extended to using ‘SUJATA’ as its corporate or trade name.

1. Whether the modification of the interim injunction on 09.09.2020, which permitted the use of the trademark ‘SUJATA’ for specific goods, inherently permitted the use of the same as a corporate or trade name.

2. Whether the Defendant's delay of five years in seeking clarification and the specific observations in the 09.09.2020 order regarding corporate name usage barred the relief sought.

The Court considered Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the inherent powers of the court to provide clarification of its orders.

It applied Section 29(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which defines what constitutes "use" of a registered trademark, including use as a trade name.

The Court further referenced the precedent of Montari Overseas Ltd. v. Montari Industries Ltd. (1997), which established principles regarding the adoption and use of a company name that is deceptively similar to a registered trademark.

The Court observed that the original prayer in paragraph 36 of the injunction application explicitly sought to restrain the use of ‘SUJATA’ as a corporate name, and the subsequent orders dated 07.02.2020 and 09.09.2020 granted relief specifically "in terms of para 36".

The Court noted that in the 09.09.2020 order, it had explicitly distinguished the Montari case by noting that Defendant No. 1 was not seeking modification of the injunction regarding its corporate name at that time.

The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the absence of a specific prohibition in the body of the order implied permission, holding that a reference to the prayer clause (para 36) incorporates all restrictions contained therein.

The Court highlighted that the Defendant failed to provide any explanation for the five-year delay in seeking this clarification, suggesting the parties were previously under no uncertainty regarding the scope of the restraint.

The Court clarified that the exception carved out for specific products (RO systems, etc.) only modified the trademark usage for those goods and did not "supplant" the general restraint on using the mark as a corporate or trade name.

The Court concluded that the modification in the order dated 09.09.2020 only allowed the use of the mark for manufacturing and selling specific products and did not tinker with the remaining directions, which included the prohibition against usage as a corporate name in terms of paragraph 36 of the application.