1984 April 18 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.] INTER DEPOL LIMITED (EX PAMYROS LIMITED), Plaintiff's. KYRIACOS PAPAVASSILIOU LIMITED, Defendants. (Trade Mark Action No. 2/83). 5 10 15 20 injunction—Interlocutory injunction—Discretion of the Court—Prin ciples applicable—Section 32 of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law 14/60)—Trade mark action—Serious question to be tried at the hearing—And probability that plaintiffs entitled torelief— But Court not satisfied that unless the interlocutory injunction is granted it will be difficult or impossible to do complete justice at later stage—Balance of conveniencetilted infavour of defend ants and this factor militated against the making of the inter locutory injunction applied for. The plaintiffs were using theii trade mark " C L I P " in relation ίο cosmetic products they were manufacturing; and the defendants were using the word "CLIPP" in relation to a cream for the skin, mainly for the hands. Plaintiffs for the time being were not manufacturing any cream for the skin in general or for the hands in particular. After filing an action for an in junction restraining the defendants from infringing their trade mark " C L I P " by using, in relation to their own said pruducts, the word "CLIPP" plaintiffs filed an application for an inter locutory injunction* on the same terms and mainly contended that in view of the bad quality of the cream which was manu factured by the defendants, the use of the word " C L I P P " in connection with it by the defendants had adverse repercussions on the reputation of the cosmetic products which were manuThe application was based on section 32'of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 {Law 14/60) which- is quoted at p. 77i post. 769 Inter Depol Ltd. v. Papa\as<siIiou Ltd.
(1984)factured by the plaintiffs and placed in the market under their trade mark "CLIP". Plaintiffs, however, have not adduced any evidence to substantiate the above contention. On theapplication for an interlocutory injunition: Held, that even if there arise serious questions to be tried at 5 thehearingofthiscase;andthat evenifthisCourtwasprepared to say that there is, also, a probability that the plaintiff's are entitled to relief, it has not been satisfied that unless the interlocutory injunction applied for by the plaintiffs is granted it will be difficult or impossible to do complete justice at a later 10 stage; that the balance of convenience in this case is tilted in favour of the defendants and this factor miiitates against the making of the interlocutory injunction applied for by the plaintiffs, especially as the plaintiffs do not manufacture as yetany creamfor theskin ingeneral,for thehandsinparticular, J5 which is sold under their trade mark "CLIP" and with which there might beconfused the creamsold bythe defendants under the name "CLTPP"; accordingly vhe application must fail. Application dismissed. Cases referred to: 20 Geo. M. HadjiKyriacos Co. Ltd. v. United Biscuits (U.K.) Ltd.
(1979)1 C.L.R. 689; M.&M. Transport Co.Ltd. v.EteriaAstikonLeoforion Lemessou Ltd.
(1981)1 C.L.R. 605; Odysseos v. A. PierisEstatesLtd.
(1982)1 C.L.R. 557. 25 Trade Mark Action. Action for an injunction restraining the defendants from infringing thetrade maTk "Clip*' which isregistered in the name of plaintiffs by using, in relation to their products the word "Clipp". Chr. Christophides, for the plaintiffs. R. Stavrakis, for the defendants. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. The plaintiffs are seeking, by means of the present action, an injun- 35 770 30 1 C.L.R. Inter Depol Ltd. v. Papavassiliou Ltd. Triantafyllides P. ction restraining the defendants from infringing the trade mark "CLIP", which is registered in the name of the plaintiffs, by using, in relation to their own products, the word "CLIPP". The plaintiffs have, also, filed an application for an inter5 locutory injunction on the same terms and the defendants are opposing such application. In my view the provision on the basis of which such an interlocutory injunction could be granted is section 32 of the Courts of Justice Law, I960 (Law 14/60). Subsections
(1)and
(2)10 of section 32 read as follows: 15 20 25 "
(1)Subject to any Rules of Court every Court, in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction, may, by order, grant an injunction (interlocutory, perpetual or mandatory) or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the Court just or convenient so to do, notwithstanding that no compensation or other relief is claimed or granted together therewith; Provided that an interlocutory injunction shall not be granted unless the Court is satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing,that there isa probability that the plaintiff isentitled to relief and that unless an interlocutory injunction is granted it shall be difficult or impossible to do complete justice at a later stage.
(2)Any interlocutory order made under subsection (I) may be made under such terms and conditions as the Court trunks just, and the Court may at any time, on reasonable cause shown, discharge or vary any such order". It appears from the material before me that the plaintiffs are using their trade mark "CLIP" in relation to cosmetic 30 products and that the defendants are using the word "CLIPP" in relation to a cream for the skin, mainly for the hands. It has been conceded by counsel for the plaintiffs that for the time being they are not manufacturing any cream for the skin in general or for the hands in particular and that, therefore, 35 they are not using their trade mark "CLIP" in relation to such a product. One of the main arguments which wasput forward by counsel for the plaintiffs is that, in view of the bad quality of the cream 771 Triantafyllides P. later Depol Ltd. v. Papavassiliou Ltd.
(1984)which is manufactured by the defendants, the use of the word "CLIPP" in connection with it by Ihe defendants has adverse repercussions on the reputation of the cosmetic products which are manufactured by the plaintiffs and placed in the market under their trade mark "CLIP"; and, also, that the defendants by using the word "CLIPP" are taking advantage of the advertising compaign of the plaintiffs in relation to their said trade mark "CLIP". 5 The plaintiffs have not, however, adduced any evidence to show that, on any particular occasion, the cream "CLIPP" 10 which is sold by the defendants was mistaken to be a product of the plaintiffs or that there has been a complaint on the part of anybody that such cream is actually of bad quality and that, thus, the reputation of the cosmetic products of the plaintiffs, which bear their trade mark "CLIP", is adversely affected. 15 The matter of the proper application of the provisions of section 32 of Law 14/60 in relation to the making of an interlocutory injunction has been considered by our Supreme Court in, inter alia, Geo. M. HadjiKyriacos Co. Ltd. v. UnitedBiscuits (U.K.) Ltd.,
(1979)1 C.L.R. 689, M. & M. Transport Co. Ltd. 20 v. Eteria Astikon Leoforion Lemessou Ltd.,
(1981)1C.L.R. 605 and Odysseos v. A. Pieris Estates Ltd.,
(1982)1 C.L.R.
- I do agree that there arise serious questions to be tried at the hearing of this case; but, that even if I was prepared to say that there is, also, a probability that the plaintiffs are entitled 25 to relief, I have not been satisfied that unless the interlocutory injunction applied for by the plaintiffs is granted it will be difficult or impossible to do complete justice at a later stage. I think that the balance of convenience in this case is tilted in favour of the defendants and this factor militates against 30 the making of the interlocutory injunction applied for by the plaintiffs, especially as the plaintiffs do not manufacture as yet any cream for the skin in general, for the hands in particular, which is sold under their trade mark "CLIP" and with which there might be confused the cream sold by the defendants under
- the name "CLIPP". This application, is therefore, dismissed with costs. Application dismissed withcosts. Ill