Interim Injunction Granted Against Deceptively Similar Mark and Artistic Work Based on Prior User and Reputation

The Plaintiff, a partnership firm, claimed use of the trademark “KOANAFLEX” since 1988 for PVC pipes and allied products

Although its original registration lapsed in 2009, it obtained a new registration in Class 21 in 2024

The Plaintiff alleged that in 2025, it discovered the Defendant—who had previously been refused a dealership—selling water tanks under the mark “KONAFLEX”

The Plaintiff filed for an interim injunction alleging copyright infringement of its stylized logo and passing off

The Defendant contended that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction, the Plaintiff’s mark was under a cloud due to third-party litigation, and that its adoption of “KONAFLEX” was bona fide based on the words "Kona" (corner) and "Flex"

1. Whether the Defendant’s mark “KONAFLEX” is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s mark “KOANAFLEX” so as to cause confusion

2. Whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit based on the Defendant's interactive website

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction based on priority in adoption and use

The Court applied the "triple test" for interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC

It relied on the principle of "first in the market" or priority in use as established in Neon Laboratories Ltd v. Medical Technologies Ltd.

Regarding territorial jurisdiction through digital presence, the court followed Kohinoor Seeds Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seeds Science Pvt. Ltd., which holds that an interactive website accessible in a forum gives that forum jurisdiction

It also applied principles from Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. v. Yashwantrao Mohite regarding the evaluation of goodwill through sales figures and promotional expenses in passing off and copyright actions

The Court found that “KONAFLEX” is phonetically, structurally, and visually nearly identical to “KOANAFLEX,” creating a high likelihood of confusion for an unwary consumer, especially as the products and trade channels are identical

The Court rejected the challenge to territorial jurisdiction at the prima facie stage, noting the Plaintiff's assertion of an interactive website and the Defendant's delivery assurances in Delhi

The Court determined the Plaintiff was the prior user, as its invoices dated back to 2023 for water tanks (and 1996 for allied goods), whereas the Defendant's trademark application was on a "proposed to be used" basis with the first sale only in January 2025

Furthermore, the Court found the Defendant’s explanation for adopting the mark—identical to the Plaintiff’s own rationale—did not inspire confidence and suggested dishonest adoption

The Court held that the Plaintiff’s established goodwill and prior use entitled it to protection against copyright infringement and passing off

The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from selling, advertising, or using the mark “KONAFLEX” or any mark deceptively similar to “KOANAFLEX” or its stylized logo during the pendency of the suit