Granting interim injunction on trade mark case refused
Sarath MALALASEKERA
The Colombo Commercial High Court Judge Rohini Walgama refusing to
grant an interim injunction in a trademark case observed “it is
succinctly clear that in the above backdrop, the Plaintiff has not
established a legal right to the above trademark or trade name which
comes under the protection of Section 160 of the Intellectual Property
Act No. 36 of 2003 and as such this court has to come to the
irresistible conclusion that there had no violation of the legal rights
of the plaintiff.”
The plaintiff CFA Institute of No. 560, Ray C. Hunt Drive, P.O. Box
3668, Charlottes Ville, Virginia, 22903-0668, USA cited Icfal Education
Lanka, No. 113, Dutugemunu Street, Kohuwela, Prof. Mallela Venkata
Sivarama Krishna Murthy, Prof. Eyunni Narasimha Murthy and Venkat Rao
Shankara all of Hyderabad, India as Respondents.
The plaintiff also stated in his plaint that the plaintiff has
instituted the instant action against the defendants for a substantive
relief claimed in the prayer ‘(a)’ to the plaint and for an interim
relief by way of Interim Injunction as prayed for in the prayer ‘(b)’ to
the plaint stating inter alia; “to restraint the defendant jointly or
severally by themselves and/or by their servants and/or agents and/or
otherwise from applying and or using the name and/or the mark ‘ICFA’
and/or ‘CFA’ and/or ‘Chartered Financial Analyst’ or any other mark,
name or get up either in its corporate name or in any of its courses or
programmes and/or in any/or in any manner whatsoever or howsoever and
which is likely to mislead the public and/or which is likely to cause
confusion and/or which is likely to damage the goodwill or reputation of
the plaintiff’s aforesaid mark and names until the final determination
of this action.”
To procure an injunctive relief stated herein before the plaintiff
has placed the following. It is to be noted that the plaintiff is a
global non profit organisation of financial analysts, portfolio and
investment managers, other similar investments professionals, and
educators and supervisors thereof.
It is further stated by the defendant that the impugned has expired
in June 2002. The defendant has also enumerated certain other
institutions which use the impugned trade mark inasmuchas to state that
in the said situation that the plaintiff cannot claim exclusively or
distinctiveness to the above said trade mark.
President’s Counsel K. Kanag-Svaran with N. R. Sivendran and S.
Kanag-Sveran instructed by Messrs Murugesu and Neelakandan appeared for
the plaintiff.
Dr. Harsha Cabral, PC with Buddhika Ilangatilleka and K.
IIlangatilleke instructed by Messrs V.W. Kularatne Associate appeared
for the defendants. |
