Trademarks – Anna Idli Gruha – ANNA – Doctrine of Prosecution History Estoppel
On 7.12.2011, the plaintiff filed two applications for trade mark / device mark ANNA IDLI GRUHA for food and hospitality services for hotel at Bijapur. On 27.11.2012, the Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai, informed the plaintiff that the search reports reflected registration of various other marks including ANNA of the defendant, which at the relevant time was marked for registration.
However, the plaintiff informed that the said marks do not resemble with any of the marks cited in the search reports. As a result, the trade marks of the plaintiff were registered.
Defendant is the owner of the registered trademark “ANNA” by assignment for his restaurant in Pune but yet to start use of the same.
The appellant – plaintiff sought injunction on the ground that use of the mark amounts to infringement and also passing off.
The District Judge, Pune, rejected the application for temporary injunction in the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff.
Having made representation for securing registration of its marks that the same does not resemble the mark of the defendant, the plaintiff is estopped from seeking injunction against the defendant for use of its mark “ANNA”. This doctrine is applicable to trademark infringement and passing off actions.
Judgment dated 30.11.2023 in A.O.No.915 of 2023 of Shantapa alias Shantesh S. Kalasgond Vs. M/s. Anna
