Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 22-07-2019 in case of petitioner name U.C. Surendranath vs Mambally’s Bakery
| |

Trademark Infringement and Willful Disobedience: Supreme Court Overturns Contempt Order

The case of U.C. Surendranath vs. Mambally’s Bakery is a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, contempt proceedings, and the legal standard for proving willful disobedience. The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s order affirming the trial court’s sentence of one-week civil imprisonment for the appellant. The Court ruled that there was no willful disobedience, and the contempt order was not legally sustainable.

The case arose from a trademark dispute between Mambally’s Bakery and U.C. Surendranath. The bakery claimed that the appellant was using its registered trademark to sell tea cakes and masala cakes. A temporary injunction was granted in favor of the bakery, restraining the appellant from using the mark. However, based on a court-appointed Commissioner’s report, the trial court found the appellant in contempt for allegedly continuing to use the trademark after the injunction. The Supreme Court held that the evidence did not establish willful disobedience and overturned the lower court’s orders.

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from a civil suit filed by Mambally’s Bakery, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant, U.C. Surendranath, from passing off goods under the trademark “Mambally’s Bakery.” The key events in the case were:

  • The trial court granted an interim injunction on November 4, 2015, prohibiting the appellant from using the trademark.
  • The injunction was served on the appellant on November 9, 2015.
  • A Court Commissioner visited the appellant’s premises on November 7, 2015, before the injunction order was served.
  • The Commissioner’s report stated that the bakery continued to use the trademark.
  • On the basis of this report, the trial court found the appellant guilty of contempt under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and sentenced him to one week of civil imprisonment.
  • The Kerala High Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, U.C. Surendranath, argued that:

  • The Commissioner’s first inspection occurred before he was served with the injunction order, making any alleged violation irrelevant.
  • During the Commissioner’s second inspection on November 20, 2015, the bakery had stopped using the trademark on product packaging.
  • The only alleged violation was the failure to remove a hoarding displaying the trademark, which was at a height of 13 feet and could not be removed immediately due to practical difficulties.
  • He was 40% disabled and could not personally remove the hoarding.
  • The trial court and High Court failed to consider that there was no intentional defiance of the injunction order.

Respondent’s Arguments

Mambally’s Bakery contended that:

  • The Commissioner’s report showed clear evidence that the appellant continued to use the trademark even after the injunction.
  • The failure to remove the hoarding constituted non-compliance with the court order.
  • The trial court was justified in holding the appellant guilty of contempt and sentencing him to civil imprisonment.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the contempt order and clarifying the legal standards for willful disobedience.

Inspection Conducted Before the Injunction Was Served

“On the date of inspection i.e. 07.11.2015, the Commissioner has noticed that all the tea cakes and masala cakes prepared were covered having trade mark ‘Mambally’s Bakery’. Since the interim order was served on the appellant only on 09.11.2015, whatever was noticed by the Commissioner on 07.11.2015 cannot be in violation of the interim order, much less willful disobedience.”

The Court found that any evidence gathered from the first inspection was irrelevant since the injunction order had not yet been served.

Willful Disobedience Requires Intent

“For finding a person guilty of willful disobedience of the order under XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C., there has to be not mere ‘disobedience’ but it should be a ‘willful disobedience.’”

The Court emphasized that disobedience must be deliberate and intentional to constitute contempt.

Reasonable Explanation for Non-Removal of Hoarding

“The appellant has offered his explanation stating that since the hoarding is situated at a height of 13 feet and also due to the scarcity of the labor force, he could not immediately remove the hoarding. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ‘willful disobedience’ on the part of the appellant.”

The Court found the appellant’s explanation reasonable and noted that he had taken steps to comply with the injunction.

Final Ruling and Impact

The Supreme Court ruled:

  • The contempt order was set aside.
  • The appeal was allowed.
  • The trial court was directed to proceed with the pending suit without being influenced by the contempt proceedings.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court relied on key rulings, including:

  • Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC: Governs contempt proceedings for violation of injunctions.
  • Legal Precedent on Willful Disobedience: Emphasized that intent is a crucial element in contempt cases.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for contempt cases and trademark disputes:

  • Contempt orders require proof of intentional defiance, not just non-compliance.
  • Injunction violations must be based on evidence collected after service of the court order.
  • Courts must consider practical difficulties in immediate compliance with injunctions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in U.C. Surendranath vs. Mambally’s Bakery reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in contempt proceedings. By setting aside the contempt order, the ruling clarifies that disobedience must be deliberate and proven beyond doubt before penalizing a party. This case serves as an important precedent in balancing trademark enforcement with the rights of defendants in civil litigation.


Petitioner Name: U.C. Surendranath.
Respondent Name: Mambally’s Bakery.
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Kerala, India.
Judgment Date: 22-07-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: U.C. Surendranath vs Mambally’s Bakery Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 22-07-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category

Similar Posts