Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v. Lunia Marketing Private Limited And Ors.

Recently, the Gauhati High Court declined to interfere with an order passed by the Trial Court in an appeal filed by Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited (“Jay Baba”) challenging the ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining Jay Baba from infringing Lunia Marketing Private Limited’s (“Lunia”) artistic work/copyright “ARHAM” and/or using similar trade dress.

The Trial Court held that Lunia is the rightful owner of the copyrighted trade dress, which had acquired enormous goodwill and reputation over time. The Trial Court, after analysing the rival trade dress, held that Jay Baba’s sac trade dress was deceptively similar to Lunia’s artistic work/copyright, and granted the ex parte ad-interim injunction.

At the appellate stage, Jay Baba asserted that the impugned order suffers from several infirmities, including, (a) failure to appreciate that the parties had been exchanging correspondences, and thus improper waiver of mandatory requirement of pre litigation mediation, (b) Lunia’s copyright/artistic work was incapable of registration as it comprises of generic and religious symbols, including a Swastik and terms like 100% PURE, BRAND, SORTEX, and BPT RICE, (c) the essential features of the rival trade dress are dissimilar (ARHAM v. JAY BABA),  and (d) filing of the suit by Lunia in Gauhati despite both parties doing business in Kolkata.

Lunia responded that the trial court has rightly waived the requirement of pre-litigation mediation since the suit involved urgency. Referring to the rival artistic work/copyright in the sac, Lunia contended that Jay Baba had no explanation for using the same trade dress as Lunia.

The appellate court rejected Jay Baba’s procedural objections regarding jurisdiction, noting that Lunia had a place of business at Gauhati, and regarding the non-compliance with mandatory pre-litigation mediation, noting urgent reliefs being sought after Jay Baba’s refusal to comply with Lunia’s prior correspondence.

On merits, the appellate court observed that there was a requirement to protect Lunia since Jay Baba’s use of the impugned trade dress had caused great inconvenience to Lunia, the relief sought was urgent in nature, and Lunia would have suffered irreparable loss. The court reiterated the well-established principle that appellate courts should not interfere unless the Trial Court’s discretion is exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely and upheld the impugned order, finding no arbitrariness or perversity in the exercise of discretion.

Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v. Lunia Marketing Private Limited And Ors. [FAO No. 8/2025] Read the judgement copy here.