The appellant filed a Commercial Appeal against the respondent challenging the interim injunction granted by the District Court, Satara. The dispute involves the alleged trademark infringement related to the sale of "Shev Chiwda," with both parties using similar trade names and packaging. The Trial Court granted interim relief to the respondent, restraining the appellant from using the product name "Ritkawali" or similar names in his product packaging.

The Bombay High Court found that the relief granted by the lower court went beyond the scope of the plaintiff’s original claims and reversed the interim injunction, directing the defendant to change the background color of the packaging from red to blue to avoid confusion.

1. Parties:

• Appellant/Applicant: Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar
• Respondent: Arun Shamrao Mardhekar

2. Subject Matter:

The plaintiff (respondent) had registered the trademark "Ritkawali" for his Shev Chiwda products in 2015. The defendant (appellant) was accused of copying this trademark by using a similar name, "Shubhlaxmi Ritkawali," and similar packaging to mislead customers.

3. Legal Proceedings:

• The plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement in 2022 and sought an interim injunction.
• The Trial Court granted temporary injunction restraining the defendant from selling his products with the name "Ritkawali."
• The defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the packaging and names were sufficiently different to avoid confusion and also undertook to change the color of his packaging to avoid similarities.

4. Court Findings:

The High Court found that:

• The plaintiff was not using his registered trademark in its entirety on his packaging.
• The relief granted by the lower court was broader than requested, imposing restrictions on product names that were not even mentioned in the plaintiff’s claims.
• The defendant’s proposal to change the background color of his packaging was accepted to minimize any possible confusion.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Section 13, Commercial Courts Act: This section was invoked as the basis for the appeal from the interim order of the lower court.
• Trademark Act: The case involved allegations of trademark infringement, with the court evaluating the "device mark" (registered trademark) of the plaintiff and its use in actual commerce.

Ratio Decidendi:

The High Court ruled that:

1.     The plaintiff could not claim infringement as he was not using the registered trademark in its exact form on his packaging.

2.     The lower court's decision to restrain the defendant was beyond the scope of the plaintiff’s specific claims, thus unjustified.

3.     The defendant’s willingness to alter the packaging design (by changing the background color) significantly minimized any likelihood of consumer confusion. Therefore, the court set aside the interim order, allowing the defendant to continue sales under the modified packaging.