Phykon Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs Mithun Gopal Advocate - Anoop Bhaskar — 2/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1(R). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 21st March 2026.
CA - COMMERCIAL APPEAL
CNR: KLTV010054702025
Filing Number
2/2025
Filing Date
25-07-2025
Registration No
2/2025
Registration Date
29-07-2025
Court
District Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram
Judge
5-Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
Decision Date
21st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Phykon Solutions Pvt. Ltd
Adv. VISWAMBHARAN V S
Prabhu Chandra Mohan
Adv. VISWAMBHARAN V S
Prathish Vijay
Adv. VISWAMBHARAN V S
Respondent(s)
Mithun Gopal Advocate - Anoop Bhaskar
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 26-02-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 20-02-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The appellate court reversed the trial court's interim injunction, finding that Mithun Gopal (plaintiff) failed to establish a prima facie case for restraining Phykon Solutions Private Limited from using the 'PHYKON' trademark. Although the court acknowledged the trademark was jointly registered in Gopal's name along with two other directors, it held that the company—as a prior user of the mark since 2007—cannot be prevented from using it by a co-proprietor, particularly given the company's established business, 120+ employees, and operational reputation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's interim injunction, finding that Mithun Gopal (plaintiff) failed to establish a prima facie case for restraining Phykon Solutions Private Limited from using the 'PHYKON' trademark. Although the court acknowledged the trademark was jointly registered in Gopal's name along with two other directors, it held that the company—as a prior user of the mark since 2007—cannot be prevented from using it by a co-proprietor, particularly given the company's established business, 120+ employees, and operational reputation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
More from this court
District Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram All courts →Explore other courts