Trademark dispute over ‘Sunday’ sent back to Commercial Court

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has remitted a dispute between two companies over the brand name ‘Sunday’ to a Commercial Court for adjudication directing it to complete hearing on the issue on a day-to-day basis.

The appeal before the HC was filed by Matra Mobile Private Limited against Madanpalle Retail Private Limited. The latter had filed a suit for injunction against Matra Mobile to prevent it from using the trademarks ‘Sunday’ and ‘Sunday Life’.

The Company claimed that it was using the brand name ‘Sunday’ since 2015 selling home furniture, especially mattresses and accessories such as pillows and mattress covers including cots and desks.

 The suit was filed after Matra Mobile started selling furniture and room décor under the brand name ‘Sunday’ as well. The Commercial Court in an order on August 17, 2023, passed an ad-interim temporary injunction preventing Matra Mobile from infringing, adopting or using the trademark ‘Sunday’ and ‘Sunday Life’.

Matra was also prevented from using the domain name sundaydesign.in and social media handles using the name. The HC bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil, in their judgement, said that “In our considered view, the Commercial Court has committed a grave error in granting exparte injunction without assigning any reason whatsoever for dispensation of notice as contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC.”

The HC noted that Matra was doing business using the trademark ‘Sunday’ and ‘Sunday Design’ since 2020 but the suit was filed only in August 2023.

Since there was a delay of more than two years, “Hence, in our view, the Commercial Court ought to have issued the notice to the appellant before considering the applications filed by the respondent,” the HC said.

Allowing the appeal, the HC said, “The Commercial Court has not recorded any finding with regard to the balance of convenience and irreparable injury likely to be caused to the parties. The Commercial Court has not recorded any reason whatsoever for dispensation of notice to the appellant[1]defendant, hence, on this ground also the impugned order is required to be set aside by remanding the matter back to the Commercial Court to re-consider the applications after providing an opportunity to both the parties to the proceedings.”

Sending the matter back to the Commercial Court for reconsideration the HC said “The grant or refusal of the interim injunction is discretionary power of the Commercial Court keeping in mind the material available before it. The material placed by the appellant was not available before the Commercial Court while considering the applications in question hence, it would be appropriate to direct the Commercial Court to consider the applications filed by the respondent-plaintiff on its merits taking note of the observations made by this Court supra.”

The HC however clarified that it had not given its opinion on the merits of the case.

“This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case. The finding recorded by this Court would not come in the way of the Commercial Court in deciding the applications on merit. We have not considered the various authorities cited by the parties as this Court has not decided the entitlement of the relief sought by the respondentplaintiff in its applications,” it said. (ComA 321/2023)