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-Jul-2025
Registration No
2/2025
Registration Date
29-Jul-2025
Court
District Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram
Judge
5-Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
Decision Date
21-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 25-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Phykon Solutions Pvt. Ltd
Adv. VISWAMBHARAN V S
-
2.Prabhu Chandra Mohan
Adv. VISWAMBHARAN V S
-
3.Prathish Vijay
Adv. VISWAMBHARAN V S
Respondent(s)
-
1.Mithun Gopal Advocate - Anoop Bhaskar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
21-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
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.
-
21-Mar-2026
Disposed
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
18-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
12-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
26-Feb-2026
Order/ Judgement
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
20-Feb-2026
For Hearing
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
19-Feb-2026
For Hearing
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
05-Feb-2026
For Hearing
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
27-Jan-2026
Call on
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
16-Jan-2026
Prays time
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
06-Jan-2026
For Hearing
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
03-Dec-2025
Await Lcr
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
20-Nov-2025
Call on
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
31-Oct-2025
For Hearing
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
30-Oct-2025
Orders in IA
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
24-Oct-2025
Order/ Judgement
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
17-Oct-2025
Order/ Judgement
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
15-Oct-2025
Orders in IA
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
09-Oct-2025
Orders in IA
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
22-Sep-2025
Order/ Judgement
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
11-Sep-2025
Order/ Judgement
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
02-Sep-2025
Orders in IA
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
13-Aug-2025
Orders in IA
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
07-Aug-2025
For hearing on IA
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
04-Aug-2025
For hearing on IA
Adl.District and Sessions Judge- IV/Adl.MACT1 Thiruvananthapuram
-
30-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 2/2025
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.
Explore other courts