Justice Amit Bansal passed the interim order on a lawsuit filed by TTK Prestige Limited alleging trademark infringement.

The plaintiff, in its lawsuit, alleged that the defendants are selling gas stoves in bulk in collusion with each other under the "Prestige" trademark, which is in violation of the law dealing with such matters.

The judge said there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and the use of the "Prestige" trademark by others is likely to cause confusion in the market as the public at large would associate that product with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, which has prima facie established immense goodwill and reputation of its trademark in respect of pressure cookers, would suffer an irreparable injury if the manufacture and sale of the objectionable products is further allowed, he added.

"Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the defendant no.1, its directors, sister concerns, assignees in business...are injuncted from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, advertising...directly or indirectly dealing in gas stoves or in any kitchenware, cookware and/or cognate/allied/related goods under the mark or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'PRESTIGE' trademark," the court said in a recent order.

While the defendant number one was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of gas stoves and its component parts, the other two defendants were its sister concerns.

The court noted that it was not disputed that the plaintiff was selling "Prestige" pressure cookers even before the defendants and the only defence was that pressure cookers and gas stoves were different products and therefore, there would be no confusion.

The court also rejected the defence's claim that one of the defendants was a prior user of the impugned trademark in respect of gas stoves.

"I am of the view that the defendant no.1 has at best shown sporadic use of the impugned trademark, which would not qualify it as a 'continuous user'.... In the absence of any documents, the court shall presume that there was no 'continuous use' by the defendant no.1," the court said.

-With PTI Input