In Brief
In this civil appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the appellant's use of the respondent's trade mark after an interim injunction order constituted willful disobedience. The Court found that the Commissioner's inspection on 7 November 2015 occurred before the order was served on 9 November 2015, so no violation could have occurred at that time. On a second inspection, the appellant had removed labels from products. The only remaining issue was the hoarding, for which the appellant—a 40% disabled person—provided a reasonable explanation citing practical difficulty. The Court held that willful disobedience requires proof of deliberate non-compliance, not mere disobedience, and found none here. The civil imprisonment order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.