Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v/s Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
- By Kanishka
- Judgment Analysis
Name of the Case- Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v/s Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Civil Appeal No. 2768 of 2023 Decided On, 14 September 2023 At, Supreme Court of India By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Published In:- Published In 2023 (6) AIR (Bom) R 326, 2024 (2) SCC 577
ISSUE
Copyright Law , In the Copyright Act, infringement takes place when a substantial portion of the artistic work is reproduced. Acquiescence (i.e., passive agreement or failure to object) can prove to be a good defense in case it constitutes implied or express permission.Passing Off , For passing off to succeed, the plaintiff needs to be establish, Goodwill or reputation in the preffered Goods; Misrepresentation by the defendant resulting in confusion; Registration alone is not enough; evidence of actual reputation is needed (see Satyam Infoway, Toyota v Prius, Reckitt & Colman). Interim Relief , Grant or refusal of stay under appeal is at the discretion of the court and should be on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.
ANALYSIS
The core question was whether the High Court correctly ordered stay of execution of a Trial Court decree granting relief for passing off and copyright infringement in favor of the appellant.The law is that for passing off, the plaintiff needs to establish goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. Acquiescence, implied or express consent is a good defence for copyright infringement. Stay on execution is only granted by the courts if the breach is prima facie and there is a balance of convenience.
Applying this, the Supreme Court held that the appellant had previously withdrawn its objections to use of the label by the respondent and postponed bringing the suit, which was an acquiescence. Moreover, the appellant did not establish its goodwill as sales and advertisement amounts were not legally determined by suitable evidence. As an interim injunction had also previously been denied on trial, the High Court was right in issuing the stay order of the decree.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s interim order suspending the enforcement of the decree, noting that a prima facie case of acquiescence and proof of reputation was lacking. It thus dismissed the appeal and held that the High Court’s order of stay was justified.I Agree with the Supreme Court’s decision, for it well differentiates between final adjudication and interim relief, and clarifies that mere claim or registration of infringement is not enough without establishing actual goodwill and immediate assertion of rights.
