- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54668 MFA No. 5081 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5081 OF 2021 (IPR) BETWEEN: MR. CARMAN L. KOBZA S/O MR. HARLAN KOBZA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1119 FM 2228, SCHULENBURG, TEXAS-78956 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TEMPORARY ADDRESS: BREND’AMOUSTRASSE 2A DUSSELDORF 40545 GERMANY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MIPA INFOTECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT T-05, HARMONY HOME APARTMENTS, NO.4/2, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, HRBR 3RD BLOCK, KACHARKANAHLLI, BENGALURU-560043. 2. MRS. BRIDGET AUXILLA RAJU W/O MR. VINOD PIUS RAJU, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT T-05, HARMONY HOME APARTMENTS, NO.4/2, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, HRBR 3RD BLOCK, KACHARANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560043. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54668 MFA No. 5081 of 2021 3. MR. VINOD PIUS RAJU AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT T-05, HARMONY HOME APARTMENTS, NO.4/2, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, HRBR 3RD BLOCK, KACHARAKNAHALLI, BENGALURU-560043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R. MADHUSUDHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.04.2021 PASSED ON I.A. NOS.1 TO 3 IN O.S.NO.9490/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BEGNALURU CITY (CCH.NO.10), DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 TO 3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant-plaintiff has filed the present miscellaneous first appeal calling in question the Order dated 17.04.2021, passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (‘trial Court’ for short) in O.S.No.9490/2019, whereby I.A.Nos.1 to 3 filed seeking temporary injunction in respect of the website www.myclininare.com, logo “MyCliniCare” and allied promotional material came to be rejected. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54668 MFA No. 5081 of 2021 Brief facts: 2. The suit is instituted by the plaintiff claiming rights over the brand name by “MyCliniCare”, its logo, tag- line “Health to you”, website and promotional material, contending that the same were created by him and the defendants were misusing the said intellectual property after severance of business relationship. Pending the suit, the applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC were filed seeking temporary injunction. 3. The trial Court, upon considering the pleadings and documents declined to grant temporary injunction holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, consequently rejected I.A.Nos.1 to 3 by order dated 17.04.2021. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54668 MFA No. 5081 of 2021 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the material on record relating to authorship and ownership of the logo, website and creative content. It is submitted that refusal of grant of injunction has resulted in continued use of the disputed intellectual property by the defendants. The order of the trial Court is erroneous and calls for interference. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the appeal is misconceived and has remained pending since 2021, without any interim protection. The brand name, logo, domain name and trademark exists much prior to the plaintiff's association and the trial Court has rightly exercised discretion in refusing injunction and no case has been made out by the petitioner for any interference. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54668 MFA No. 5081 of 2021 7. It is submitted that the dispute involves mix questions of fact and law which only can be adjudicated by a full-fledged trial. 8. Having regard to the submissions made, the undisputed facts are that: (1) The appeal has been pending since 2021. (2) No interim order of injunction has been granted by this Court during the pendency of the appeal. (3) The suit itself is pending for adjudication on merits. 9. This Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending any further. The issues raised by the parties relate to ownership, authorship, prior use and entitlement over the alleged intellectual property, which necessarily require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Any observation on merits at the appellate stage while - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54668 MFA No. 5081 of 2021 examining an interlocutory order, may prejudice either party in the pending suit. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the following observation: i. The trial Court shall adjudicate O.S.No.9490/2019 independently on its own merits uninfluenced by the order refusing temporary injunction as well as by any observation made in this appeal. ii. All contentions urged by both the parties are kept open. iii. The trial Court is to expedite the disposal of the suit in accordance with law. iv. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the final claims. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23