Bangalore District Court
Ratnasri Karra vs Nisary Mahesh on 4 February, 2026
Com.OS.No.1732/2024
KABC170035252024
IN THE COURT OF LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-86) (Commercial Court)
THIS THE 4th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
PRESENT:
SRI.ARJUN. S. MALLUR. B.A.L.LL.B.,
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.OS.No.1732/2024
BETWEEN:
Ms. Ratnasri Karra,
Wife of Srikanth Karra,
Aged about 51 years,
R/At No.32, 10th Main,
Laughing Waters,
Old Airport Varthur Road,
Ramagundanahalli,
Bengaluru - 560066
: PLAINTIFF
(Represented by Sri. Mahesh Arkalgud, Advocate.)
AND
Ms. Nisary Mahesh,
Wife of Mr. Mahesh Vijayan,
Aged about 43 years,
1
Com.OS.No.1732/2024
R/At Flat No.6, Sarada Apartments,
Guruvayur Road,
Punkunnam Po,
Thrissur - 680004
2. M/S Hubwords Private Limited
Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013
Flat No.6, Sarada Apartments
Guruvayur Road
Punkuknnam P.O. Thrissur
Kerala - 680004
: DEFENDANTS
(Represented By Sri. Keerthikumar D Naik , Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 19.12.2024
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, suit for declaration & Suit for Recovery of Money.
Possession, Suit for injunction
etc.)
Date of commencement of 12.08.2025
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 04.02.2026
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 01 16
(ARJUN. S. MALLUR)
LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
2
Com.OS.No.1732/2024
JUDGMENT
Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her employees, agents, representatives from directly or indirectly using the deceptively similar schedule 'B' mark or any other mark which is deceptively similar to schedule 'A' mark and direct the defendant to render true and faithful account of all the profits earned by her by using the deceptively similar mark and also to direct defendant to pay to the plaintiff such amount with interest at 18% from the date of suit till realization.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as under:-
The plaintiff is a Chartered Financial Analyst and a SEBI registered investment advisor. The plaintiff provides financial advisory services to women entrepreneurs and assist them in planning and achieving business growth through understanding their own business finances, costing, revenue models, profitability, funding requirements etc. In the year 2014, the plaintiff founded a business venture and started operating under the brand name 'Her-Mony'. Since then the plaintiff has been using the said mark and user date is disclosed as 22.01.2014 in the affidavit filed before the registry of trademarks. The plaintiff is eligible for obtaining a trade mark under class 3 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 36 and accordingly the plaintiff mark 'Her-Mony' is registered under class 36 bearing registration No.3218164. The trademark registered in favour of the plaintiff is as under:
(a) Initially the plaintiff registered only the logo and subsequently obtained registration of the work mark which has been granted under the class 36 vide certificate dated 24.06.2020 bearing the registered trademark No.4542317. The same has been described as schedule 'A' to the plaint. It is submitted that plaintiff has been schedule 'A' mark since 2014 and has advised several clients in their financial transitions and also conducted several financial education sessions in large corporate and also has started a face book page known as 'Her-
Mony:Financial Advisory Services for Women'. Thereafter on 12.12.2013 the plaintiff changed the name of the facebook page to 'Her-Mony: Women Empowerment through Financial independence. It is submitted that the plaintiff has been writing and publishing various articles about financial management and women empowerment 4 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 and has created a website for her business and also has started writing articles and maintaining blog on the said website. It is submitted that plaintiff has painstakingly built the brand and image of the business and the brand 'Her-Mony' has a significant value and brand recollection in the industry circle.
(b) It is alleged that in November 2019 the plaintiff came across an online talk show by name 'Her Money Talks' associated with a website www.hermoneytalks.com. Upon gathering more information the plaintiff came to know about the defendant and set up a meeting with the defendant to understand the nature of the business carried on by the defendant. Plaintiff came to know that the main business of the defendant under 'Her Money Talks' was same that of the plaintiff related to finance and women and in the discussion it was offered that the plaintiff could be on the panel of experts of 'Her-Money Talks'. The plaintiff not being satisfied with the collaboration was taken aback by the manner in which the defendant was using her trademark and carrying on the business in the same line as that of the plaintiff and theretofore the plaintiff decline to collaborate with the defendant. It is alleged that the defendant has started a venture by adopting the same and similar trademark and 5 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 trade name as that of the plaintiff and the area of work and the target audience of the defendant is same as that of the plaintiff. The word mark and logo used by the defendant is as under:
Which is described as schedule 'B' to the plaint.
(c) It is submitted that by adopting an absolutely similar name with a suffix of 'Talks' the defendant has created a similar brand name deceptively similar as that of the plaintiff. Plaintiff issued a cease and desist notice dated 16.04.2020 calling upon the defendant to abandon the use of the marks to which no response was issued by the defendant.
(d) It is further alleged that upon receiving the notice from the plaintiff defendant hurriedly attempted to obtain registration of a trademark for 'HerMoneyTalks' and applied for the registration of the word mark as well as the logo on 05.05.2021. The defendant is claiming that that she has utilized the trademark only since 19.10.2018 which indicates that she was aware of the brand created by the plaintiff which was in existence about 5 years 6 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 earlier. Upon the application submitted by the defendant the Registrar of trademark notified objections for registration of the trademark and the Registrar has notified that the trademark sought to be registered by the defendant is similar to the existing trademarks. It is submitted that the defendant has adopted this name 'HerMoneyTalks' only with a malafide intention to bank upon the popularity achieved by the plaintiff and by using deceptively similar mark defendant has been infringing on the intellectual property of the plaintiff standing to benefit from the usage of the trademark of the plaintiff which has been painstakingly built by the plaintiff. It is submitted that plaintiff being the registered user of the mark 'Her- Mony' is entitled to use the trademark in exclusion of anyone else. The good will and reputation gained by the plaintiff is evident from the reviews and testimonials received by the plaintiff. Continued usage of the infringed marks by the defendant would only result loss of business to the plaintiff and the defendant by using the deceptively similar mark is earning on the good will and brand established by the plaintiff creating confusion in the minds of general public and is illegally trying to benefit upon the good will and refutation built by the plaintiff. Hence the present suit.
7Com.OS.No.1732/2024
3. On service of summon the defendant appeared and filed detailed written statement. The defendant has raised preliminary objections that the present suit without complying with the provisions of Sec.12A of the Commercial Court Act 2015 is not maintainable. The defendant further contends that she is a registered proprietor of the trademark 'HerMoneyTalks' with trademark registration No.4496073 and that plaintiff has already instituted rectification proceedings before the Registrar of Trademarks and the same is pending for adjudication and only with an intention to harass the defendant the present suit is filed. It is submitted by the defendant that the registry of trademark while granting the registration of the trademark of the defendant 'HerMoneyTalks has duly considered the device mark registered in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that earlier this suit was filed as O.S.No.1399/2021 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru wherein the interim application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the concerned Court against which the plaintiff preferred an appeal in MFA NO.5810/2021 which is also been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. It is submitted that the use of the mark 'HerMoneyTalks' by the defendant does not in any manner infringe the rights of the plaintiff over her 8 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 registered trademark in any manner and the allegations made in the plaint is only to prevent a healthy competition at the hands of defendant and suppress the defendant. It is submitted that the defendant is an experienced banking professional with more that 8 years of work experience in the private sector banks and after emitting from the baking services the defendant has making use of her experience gathered with respect to real time life situations of many women both from rural and urban areas, who had to struggle in their daily life because of the lack of proper financial awareness. It is submitted that the defendant in order to meet the requirements of the women in the society with regard to the finance has been writing articles on various topics in leading journals in partnership with one of her friend Mr. Hemanth Gorur who have incorporated a limited liability partnership under the name any style 'HUBWORDS MEDIA LLP'. The defendant contends that the expressions 'Her-Money', 'His Money', 'Her Spend', 'His Spend', 'His and Her Money', 'Her Money Moves', 'Money Talks' are all popular and general expressions in the finance sector and there is a website by name www.hermoney.com which is in existence for more than 20 years. Further the expression 'money talks' is a generic and common expression in the finance 9 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 industry. It is submitted that the LLP floated by the defendant and her partner adopted the brand name 'HerMoneyTalks' for its activities and that the expression 'Her-Mony' and 'Money Talks' when taken independently is more of the general expression already in use across the world.
(a) Defendant submits that within short span of time the LLP has been able to build a strong presence in the Industry because of the experience and expertise of the partners and high level networking activities and the personal contacts of the partners. The LLP has been engaged in organizing various training programmes, seminars, workshops, webinars etc., and that under the brand name 'HerMoneyTalks' the defendant along with her partner Mr. Hemanth Gorur have published various articles as detailed in para 16 of the written statement. It is further submitted that the LLP run by the defendant has been selected by reputed business ventures and incubators as detailed in para 19 of the written statements.
(b) The defendant submits that after registration of the plaintiff's profile on www.hermoneytalks.com there were frequent communication between plaintiff and the defendant and they were discussing ways of collaborating 10 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 each other. By email dated 24.11.2019 defendant had shared the initial areas of collaboration with the plaintiff and also informed that the plaintiff was required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement which the plaintiff acknowledged. It is submitted that vide email dated 29.11.2019 the defendant sent copy of the Non Disclosure Agreement required to be signed by the plaintiff and also shared the media kit for Her Money Talks magazine. It is submitted that through email dated 01.04.2020 the defendant informed the plaintiff about the inquiries received with regard to availing the services of experts and called upon the plaintiff to give her rate card for the internal records of the defendant but the plaintiff was not inclined to share the rate card and requested the defendant to direct clients to visit her website and fill up the required form. It is submitted that the plaintiff had approached the defendant for partnering with the defendant and her LLP and had discussions where the plaintiff had no dispute with the use of the mark 'HerMoneyTalks'. It is submitted that the registered trademark of the defendant 'HerMoneyTalks' does not in any manner infringe upon the registered trademark of the plaintiff and logo of both plaintiff as well as defendant registered marks are entirely different and it is unlikely to 11 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 cause any confusion in the minds of the people. On these grounds the defendant has sought for dismissing the suit.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has infringed upon the registered trade mark of the plaintiff bearing Nos.3218164 and 4542317 under class 36 as described in schedule A by using deceptively similar trade mark described in schedule B to the plaint?
2) Whether the defendant is liable to render accounts with respect to the profits earned by use of deceptively similar trade mark as described in schedule B and liable to pay the same to the plaintiff with interest @ 18% per annum?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed?
4) What order or decree?
5. The plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.33. The defendant No.1 has examined herself as DW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to D.75.
12Com.OS.No.1732/2024
6. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides. Both counsels have submitted written submissions with citations. Perused the entire material on record.
7. My answer to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Negative.
Issue No.2 : Does not survive for consideration. Issue No.3 : In the Negative.
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the following.
REASONS
8. ISSUE No.1:- The plaintiff has examined herself as P.W.1 reiterating the averments made in the plaint and has got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.33. Ex.P.1 is the Certified copy of the User Affidavit dated 05.10.2018. Ex.P.2 is the Certified copy of trade mark certificate bearing No.4542317 dated 25.07.2023. Ex.P.3 is the Certified copy of trade mark certificate bearing No.3218164 dated 25.07.2023. Ex.P.4 is the Certified copy of trade mark certificate bearing No.4496073 dated 25.07.2023. Ex.P.5 is the Certified copy of trade mark certificate bearing No.4496074 dated 25.07.2023. Ex.P.6 13 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 is the Invoice dated 28.02.2013 raised by Credence Fiduciary Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ex.P.7 is the Invoice dated 04.08.2014 raised by V Kiranmayi. Ex.P.8 is the Invoice dated 14.04.2015 raised by V C CIRCLE. Ex.P.9 is the Invoice dated 06.07.2015 raised by M/s.Creative Network. Ex.P.10 is the Invoice dated 17.08.2016 raised by V Kiranmayi. Ex.P.11 is the Printout of the mail dated 12.02.2014 sent by Anu Seth to the plaintiff. Ex.P.12 is the Printout of the receipt generated by Facebook Ads team dated 31.01.2016. Ex.P.13 is the Printout of page transparency of plaintiff Facebook account. Ex.P.14 is the Printout of the article dated 13.07.2015 published on the plaintiff website. Ex.P.15 is the Receipts issues by Global Incubation Services. Ex.P.16 is the Printout of plaintiff's Facebook account page. Ex.P.17 is the Printout of details of plaintiff Facebook creation page. Ex.P.18 is the Printout of the articles written by the plaintiff about her brand. Ex.P.19 is the Printout of the website of the plaintiff. Ex.P.20 is the Printout of the services rendered by the plaintiff, testimonials of the quality of services and screenshots of the testimonials. Ex.P.21 is the Printout of screenshots of the events plaintiff delivering training sessions and talks. Ex.P.22 is the Printout of the screenshot of the defendant website. Ex.P.23 is the Copy 14 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 of the legal notice dated 16.04.2020. Ex.P.24 is the Copy of the trade mark application filed by the defendant with respect to word mark. Ex.P.25 is the Copy of the trade mark application filed by the defendant with respect to device mark. Ex.P.26 is the Printout of the first examination report with regard to defendant word mark issued by Registrar of Trade Mark. Ex.P.27 is the Printout of the first examination report with regard to defendant device mark issued by Registrar of Trade Mark. Ex.P.28 is the Printout of the invoices with respect to usage of schedule A mark by the plaintiff. Ex.P.29 is the Copy of the plaint filed in O.S.1399/2021. Ex.P.30 is the Copy of the rectification application No.4496073 filed before Trade Mark Registry. Ex.P.31 is the Copy of the objections filed by defendant to the said application. Ex.P.32 is the Copy of the order passed in O.S.1399/2021 dated 02.12.2024. Ex.P.33 is the Certificate u/S 63(4)(C) of BSA, 2023 with respect to the electronic evidence produced.
9. Against the evidence of the plaintiff the defendant No.1 examined herself as D.W.1 reiterating the averments made in the written statement. She has got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to D.75. Ex.D.1 is the Printout of the registration confirmation of the plaintiff on the portal 15 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 www.hermoneytalks.com. Ex.D.2 is the Copy of the plaintiff's profile registered and displayed with www.hermoneytalk.com. Ex.D.3 is the Copy of the email dated 24.11.2019 sent by the defendant to plaintiff. Ex.D.4 is the Copy of the email dated 24.11.2019 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.D.5 is the Copy of the email dated 29.11.2019 sent by the defendant. Ex.D.6 is the Copy of the email dated 30.11.2019 sent by the plaintiff to defendant. Ex.D.7 is the Copy of the email dated 01.04.2020 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff. Ex.D.8 is the Copy of reply the email dated 01.04.2020 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.D.9 is the Copy of the email dated 01.04.2020 sent by the defendant to plaintiff. Ex.D.10 is the Copy of the email dated 01.04.2020 sent by the plaintiff. Ex.D.11 is the True extracts of whatsapp text messages between the plaintiff and the defendant. Ex.D.12 is the Copy of the extracts of the text messages in the whatsapp group "HerMoneyTalks Group 1". Ex.D.13 is the Printout of the counter statement and annexed documents filed in the Trade Mark Registry. Ex.D.14 is the The printout carrying the mark her-mony at the top is plaintiff registered trade mark and the mark hermoneytalks in the bottom is the mark of the defendant. Ex.D.15 is the Copy of the certificate of 16 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 Incorporation dated 27.05.2016. Ex.D.16 is the Copy of the printout of the portal 'www.hermoney.com'. Ex.D.17 is the Printout of the homepage of the portal 'www.hermoney.ie'. Ex.D.18 is the Printout of the home page of the portal 'www.hermoney.de'. Ex.D.19 is thePrintout of the home page of the portal 'www.hermoneymoves.com'. Ex.D.20 is the Printout of the portal 'www.hisandhermoney.com'.
Ex.D.21 is the Printout of the Article titled 'Four Little known insights into how women in India manage Money' dated April 29, 2019. Ex.D.22 is the Printout of the Article Titled 'Why Women shy away from taking personal loans' dated April 17, 2019. Ex.D.23 is the Printout of the Article titled "Your Money: Golden Rules for a successful entrepreneur" dated 30th April, 2019. Ex.D.24 is the Printout of the Article "Why time value of money is important in financial planning" dated June 11, 2019. Ex.D.25 is the Printout of Article titled 'How to use Net Present Value to determine your investment' dated 11th June, 2019. Ex.D.26 is the Printout of Article titled 'Budget 2019: 7 key expectations of women' from Nirmala Sitharaman's Budget' dated June 30, 2019. Ex.D.27 is the Printout of Article titled 'Mutual Funds: To stay invested or exit? Check these four points first', dated August 13, 17 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 2019. Ex.D.28 is the Article titled '4 unique ways to fund your higher education abroad' dated November 2, 2019. Ex.D.29 is the Printout of Article titled 'How to build a portfolio that matches your risk appetite' dated October 15, 2019. Ex.D.30 is the Printout of Article titled 'Why you need an indemnity health insurance' dated November 1, 2019. Ex.D.31 is the Printout of Article titled 'Are you a risk-averse investor? Here is a check-list' dated November 6, 2019. Ex.D.32 is the Printout of Article titled 'MCLR or External Benchmarks: Which is better for loans?' dated December 19, 2019. Ex.D.33 is the Printout of Article titled 'From Auto to BFSI, four sectors under stress: Invest or avoid in 2020' dated December 27, 2019. Ex.D.34 is the Printout of Article titled 'Is Bharat Bond ETF a good investment bet? Here is what you need to know' dated January 1, 2020. Ex.D.35 is the Printout of Article titled 'What is Opportunity Cost and how it can help you take better investment decisions' dated January 18, 2020. Ex.D.36 is the Printout of Article titled 'Top 5 Financial gifts for your valentine this Valentine's Day' dated 14 Feb 2020. Ex.D.37 is the Printout of Article titled 'Investing in fluctuating markets: Buy, hold or exit?' dated June 3, 2020. Ex.D.38 is the Printout of Article titled 'How to build DIY Insurance corpus' dated June 9, 2020. Ex.D.39 is the 18 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 Printout of Article titled 'Stock Market Investment: Top 4 sectors to invest in right now; Here's why' dated June 22, 2020. Ex.D.40 is the Printout of Article titled '4 financial planning mistakes you should avoid in the post-covid world' dated July 5, 2020.
Ex.D.41 is the Printout of Article titled 'Protecting return; Do's and don'ts of portfolio diversification' dated June 19, 2020. Ex.D.42 is the Printout of Article titled 'Rules of Inheritance: Know how to transfer property in your name' dated July 1, 2020. Ex.D.43 is the Printout of Article titled 'Fixed Income: Key things to know before your invest in bonds' dated August 26, 2020. Ex.D.44 is the Printout of Article titled 'Your Money: A few technical indicators that can help identify market trends' dated 22 September, 2020. Ex.D.45 is the Printout of Article titled 'Your Money: Know how balanced mutual funds operate' dated 30 September, 2020. Ex.D.46 is the Printout of Article titled 'Why you will never go wrong with real estate investment' dated October 27, 2020. Ex.D.47 is the Printout of Article titled 'New RBI guidelines on loan moratorium: what should borrowers do?' dated September 26, 2020. Ex.D.48 is the Printout of Article titled 'Options trading: Know the essentials of call and put options' dated October 14, 2020. Ex.D.49 is the Printout of Article titled 19 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 'Life Insurance: How to calculate returns on insurance policies' dated October 20, 2020. Ex.D.50 is the Printout of Article titled 'Index funds: A low-cost, low risk investment' dated November 20, 2020. Ex.D.51 is the Printout of Article titled 'Debt fund: Know when you should invest in liquid funds' dated December 29, 2020. Ex.D.52 is the Copy of email dated 17 June 2020 from NASSCOM Intimating the selection of the defendant's business. Ex.D.53 is the Copy of the Certificate of Incorporation dated 22.03.2021. Ex.D.54 is the Copy of Certificate of Incorporation dated 13 May 2021. Ex.D.55 is the Copy of the Trademark Status Report of 'HER MONEY' (Application Number 3609219). Ex.D.56 is the Printout of the Google search results for the expression 'Her Money'. Ex.D.57 is the Copy of the examination report issued by the Registrar of Trademarks against the Trademark application made by the plaintiff. Ex.D.58 is the Copy of the reply dated 07.08.2020 submitted by the defendant against the examination report. Ex.D.59 is the Copy of the Status report for the trademark application 4496073. Ex.D.60 is the Printout of the Trademark Registry portal showing the status of the Trademark application number 3609219. Ex.D.60(a) is the Examination report issued to plaintiff by the TM Registry dated 24.06.2017. Ex.D.60(b) is the 20 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 Examination report issued to plaintiff by the TM Registry dated 24.06.2017.
Ex.D.61 is the Reply to examination report filed by the plaintiff dated 03.11.2017. Ex.D.62 to 64 are the Printout of the receipts dated 18.10.2018, 06.11.2018 and 08.11.2018. Ex.D.65 is the Printout of the News item titled 'Fintech Startup selected for Nasscom Incubation' published in Times of India portal on dated 25 June 2020. Ex.D.66 is the Printout of the email dated 15.02.2021 from the Kerala Startup Mission. Ex.D.67 is the Printout of the email dated 22.10.2020 from Kerala Startup Mission. Ex.D.68 is the Printout of the email dated 24.08.2020 from startup India. Ex.D.69 is the Printout of the email dated 09.01.2019 from IIMB. Ex.D.70 is the Printout of the email dated 17.12.2020 along with the offer letter by IIM Kozhikkode. Ex.D.71 is the Printout of the email dated 01.06.2021 from the Kerala Startup Mission along with the copy of the signed agreement. Ex.D.72 is the Printout of the news item titled 'Kochi startup sets up target of 1 lakh financially literate women' published in times of india.com dated Jan 9, 2021. Ex.D.73 is the Printout of the News item titled 'Her Money Talks spreads financial literacy' published by the New Indian Express.com. Ex.D.74 is the Printout of the excerpts from the interview of the 21 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 defendant published on 23 July 2020 on the portal www.yourstory.com. Ex.D.75 is the Certificate u/S 63(4)(C) of BSA, 2023 with respect to Ex.D.62 to 74.
10. P.W.1 has been cross examined by the defendant and in the course of cross-examination P.W.1 deposes that at the time of filing the application for registration of her trademark there were already four other names and it is also deposed that at the time of filing of the suit the application filed by the defendant for registration of her mark was pending before the trademark registry. It is further admitted by P.W.1 that while considering the application of defendant of the defendant by the trademark registry the earlier trademarks with the name 'Her-Money' as mentioned in Ex.P.26 was brought to the notice of the defendant and the earlier trademarks also include the logo registered in the name of the plaintiff. Further in the cross-examination P.W.1 deposes that the schedule 'B' registered mark is a word mark. She further deposes having not been aware of any objections being filed opposing the application of the defendant. She further deposes that only after the registration of the trademark in favour of the defendant she has filed objections before the trademark registry which is pending 22 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 adjudication. She also admits defendant having filed an application for rectification and cancellation of the plaintiff's registered trademark which are pending for adjudication. Further in the cross-examination P.W.1 deposes that she has not filed any judicial proceedings or any proceedings before the trademark registry for cancellation of the other 4 marks as found in Ex.P.26. Further in the cross-examination the emails which are marked at Ex.D.1 to D.10 have been admitted by P.W.1 as they are the mails that were exchanged with the defendant. It is suggested to P.W.1 in the cross- examination that she has ceased business activities in her individual name which has been denied by P.W.1. She also admits being a part of the whatsapp group created by the defendant when they were conversing with each other with regard to she being taken as one of the experts on panel of 'Her Money Talks'. P.W.1. also admits in the cross- examination at para 8 that by the time she filed her application for registration of the word mark 'Her-Money' the defendant had already filed application for registration of her word mark 'Her Money Talks'. She has also admitted the documents at Ex.D.13 and D.14.
23Com.OS.No.1732/2024
11. D.W.1 has also been subjected to cross-examination and in her cross-examination she deposes that the only source of revenue for the LLP is through conducting seminars and workshops and that the word mark 'Her Money Talks' and the domain name indulges in providing financial education through seminars and workshops. In the cross-examination D.W.1 deposes that the plaintiff was associated with her for nearly 10 months. She also admits both of them filing against each other rectification proceedings against each others mark which are pending for adjudication before the trademark registry.
12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff in the course of his arguments contended that the plaintiff is prior registered user of the schedule 'A' mark from 22.01.2014 and the defendant is a subsequent user of her mark of schedule 'B' mark since 19.10.2018. The word mark of the plaintiff came to be registered on 22.03.2016 whereas the word mark of the defendant is registered on 05.05.2020. The counsel for the plaintiff contended that the evidence on record clearly substantiates that the defendant has been infringing upon the plaintiff's trademark and further contended that the other marks used in Ex.P.26 are not in any manner similar whereas the 24 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 word mark of the defendant is directly and deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's word mark creating confusion thereby infringing the registered mark of the plaintiff. It is argued by the learned counsel that merely because the plaintiff did not oppose the registration of the defendants mark does not mean that the plaintiff's right to sue against infringement is taken away. It is contended that the plaintiff being a prior user is entitled for the relief of injunction as the defendant being the subsequent user is raiding upon the goodwill earned by the plaintiff and has been infringing the registered mark of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff in support of his arguments has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in AIR 1995 Delhi 300, N.R. Dongre and others vs. Whirlpool Corporation and others, wherein at para 32 and para 41 it has been observed as under:
Para 32: Therefore, registration of a trade mark under the Act would be irrelevant in an action for passing off. Registration of a trade mark in fact docs not confer any new right on the proprietor thereof than what already existed at common law without registration of the mark. The right of goodwill & reputation in a trade mark was recognised at common law even before it was subject of statutory law. Prior to codification of trade mark law there was no provision in India for registration of a trade mark. The right in a trade 25 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 mark was acquired only by use thereof. This right has not been affected by the Act and is preserved and recognised by sections 27(2) and 33.
Para 41: The concept and principle on which passing off action is grounded is that a man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another man. A trader needs protection of his right of prior user of a trade mark as the benefit of the name and reputation earned by him cannot be taken advantage of by another trader by copying the mark and getting it registered before he could get the same registered in his favor. We see no reason why a registered owner of a trade mark should be allowed to deceive purchasers into the belief that they are getting the goods of another while they would be buying the goods of the former which they never intended to do. In an action for passing off it should not matter whether misrepresentation or deception has proceeded from a. registered or an unregistered user of a trade mark. He cannot represent his own goods as the goods of some body else.
13. He has also relied upon another judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 2019 SCC Online Del 11580, Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Godrej Skyline Developers Private Limited and another, wherein at para 22 it has been observed as under:
Para 22: Supreme Court in Durga Dutt's cass has held also that where the two marks are identical noо further questions arse for then the 26 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 infringement is made out. When the two marks are not identical the plaintiff would have to establish that the mars used by the defendant od early resembles the plaintiffs registered trade mark as is likely to deceive or cause confusion in relation is goods in respect of which it is registered. "The persons who would be deceived are of course, the purchasers of the goods and it is the likelihood of their being deceived that is the subject of consideration. The resemblance may be phonetic visual or in the basic idea represented by the plaintiffs mark. The purpose of the comparison is for determining whether the essential features of the plaintiffs trade mark are to be found in that used by the defendant. The identification of the essential features of the mark is in essence a question of fact and depends on the judgment of the Court based on the evidence led before it as regards the usage of the trade
14. Per contra the learned counsel for the defendant in the course of arguments has contended that the plaintiff has not objected for the registration of the trademark of the defendant and that as per Sec.17 of the Trademark Act a trademark cannot be split into parts for claiming protection and that the word Her and Money are generic common English words against which there can be no injunction. The learned counsel for the defendant would argue that the registered word mark of both plaintiff and defendant are distinctly separate and there is no deceptive similarity as alleged by the plaintiff. The 27 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 counsel for defendant would further argue that the plaintiff has not placed on any evidence on record to substantiate that by use of the defendant's mark the plaintiff has been put to any economic loss as contended.
Further it was argued that the nature of business conducted by the plaintiff as well as the defendant are entirely different and at no point of time the defendant has eaten into the business of the plaintiff thereby causing revenue loss to the plaintiff. In support of his arguments he has relied upon the following decisions.
1. Judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10638/2025 dated 14.08.2025, Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and another vs. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, wherein at paras 31.4, 31.5. 32, 34 and 34.1 it has been observed as under:
Para 31.4:The strength of a trademark lies in its inherent distinctiveness or the distinctiveness acquired through use. Invented or coined marks - such as Kodak or Solio - are inherently distinctive and command the highest degree of protection. These marks immediately signify the commercial origin of the goods or services.
Para 31.5:In the case of composite marks - those contained multiple elements, such as words and logos - the overall impression created by the mark is relevant. However, proprietors cannot claim exclusive rights over individual components, particularly, non-distinctive or descriptive 28 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 elements. Courts have often required disclaimers of such generic parts at the time of registration.
Para 32:A foundational principle in trademark law is that marks must be compared as a whole, and not by dissecting them into individual components. This is known as the anti-dissection rule, which reflects the real-world manner in which consumers perceive trademarks - based on their overall impression, encompassing appearance, sound, structure, and commercial impression. The correct test for trademark infringement is whether, when considered in its entirety, the defendant's mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark. The Court expressly cautioned against isolating individual parts of a composite mark, as such an approach disregard how consumers actually experience and recall trademarks.
Para 34: It is a well-established principle of trademark law that generic, descriptive, or laudatory terms - particularly those commonly used in a given trade - cannot be monopolized by any one proprietor. Even where such terms form part of a registered trademark, protection does not extend to those elements per se unless it is affirmatively shown that they have acquired secondary meaning - i.e., that the term has come to be exclusively and distinctively associated with the plaintiff's goods in the perception of the consuming public.
Para 34.1:Descriptive words denoting the character or quality of goods are not capable of exclusive appropriation, except where they have acquired distinctiveness through prolonged, continuous, and 29 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 exclusive use.
2. 2020 SCC Online Del 2766, Delhivery Private Limited vs. Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited, wherein at para 77 it is observed as under:
Para 77: It is a settled position of law that a class of persons to whom services are rendered would be a relevant consideration to assess whether the marks are deceptively similar.
3. 2021 SCC Online Del 2635, Phonepe Private Liited vs. EZY Services and another, wherein at para 76(i) to
(iii) it is observed as under:
Para 76: The legal position that merits from the aforesaid decisions may be explained as under:
(i) Exclusivity can be claimed, and infringement/ passing off alleged, only in respect of the entire mark of the plaintiff, and not in respect of part thereof. The registration of the whole mark cannot confer any exclusive rights, on the holder thereof, to any part of such registered mark.
(ii) It is open, however, for the plaintiff to assert infringement on the ground that a part of the mark has been copied by the defendant, provided the part so copied is the dominant part or the essential feature of the plaintiff's trademark.
(iii) No exclusivity can be claimed, over a descriptive mark, or a descriptive part of the mark, even by misspelling it.
4. 2019 SCC Online Del 6652, Bigtree Entertainment Pvt.Ltd., vs. D. Sharma and another, 30 Com.OS.No.1732/2024
5. (2023) SCC Online Del 4185, Vasundara Jewellers Private Limited vs. Vasundhara Fashion Jewelry LLP and another, wherein at para 28 it is observed as under:
Para 28: A party that has made an assertion that its mark is dissimilar to a cited mark and obtains a registration on the basis of that assertion, is not to be entitled to obtain an interim injunction against the proprietor of the cited mark, on the ground that the mark is deceptively similar. It is settled law that a person is not permitted to approbate and reprobate. A party making contrary assertions is not entitled to any equitable relief.
15. Upon considering the pleadings and the evidence lead by the parties and keeping in mind the observations made by the Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions referred supra and upon examining the same it is clear that the plaintiff has been registered user of the word mark and logo 'Her-Mony' which has been registered under Nos.3218164 and 4542317. Likewise the word mark and logo registered in favour of defendant is 'HerMoneyTalks' bearing Nos.4496073 and 4496074. The mark of the plaintiff has 31 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 been under class 36 with respect to financial planning, financial advisory and consulting services for the business. In the registration of the defendant's mark is also under class 36 for similar services. It is not in dispute that both the registered marks of plaintiff and defendant are under class 36 which relates to similar services. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that the defendant by using a deceptively similar mark is riding upon the good will earned by the plaintiff over a period of time and is trying to unjustly enrich herself. Per contra the defendant categorically denies the same and contend that the nature and scope of services provided by the defendant is entirely different and both the marks are no way similar with each other and the visual appearance is also entirely different, only phonetically they may sound similar but in fact they are entirely different. The defendant has produced email communications with the plaintiff and the whatsapp messages that has been exchanged and in none of these communications the plaintiff has ever objected for the defendant using the mark 'HerMoneyTalks'. In fact when the defendant applies for registration of her mark the plaintiff did not raise any objections at all. It is only when the trademark was registered in favour of the defendant the plaintiff has filed 32 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 an application for rectification and cancellation of the trademark registered in favour of the defendant and a visa versa application is also filed by the defendant and both are pending for adjudication before the competent authority. In the entire documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.33 there is no document by the plaintiff to show that by using the schedule 'B' mark 'HerMoneyTalks' the defendant has in any manner affected the business of the plaintiff and caused damage to the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff in any manner. With respect to the defendant's word mark the plaintiff has produced the first examination report issued by the Registrar of trademark which is marked as Ex.P.26 wherein an objection is raised with regard to existence of similar marks and it discloses that apart from the plaintiff's mark 'Her-Mony" there are other marks of having same phonetic similarity which is registered in the names of different entities. Now these marks are in existence much prior to the registration and one of the mark i.e., 'Her Money Power Your Future' which was objected and the same has been rejected. Therefore it is not only the defendant who has been using the word mark 'HerMoney' but there are other entities which are using the same and P.W.1 categorically admits in the cross-examination that she has not instituted proceedings 33 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 against the other existing mark as evident in Ex.P.26.
16. This suit was earllier filed by the plaintiff before the City Civil Court Bengaluru and was registered as O.S.No.1399/2021. In the said suit the plaintiff had sought for an interim relief of temporary injunction alleging the similar grounds and the defendant had objected the same and in the course of hearing on the said application the plaintiff had relied upon the very same documents which are now tendered in evidence and the earlier Court after considering the materials on record and also the nature of business and services rendered by the defendant using the word mark 'HerMoneyTalks' has observed that there is no exclusivity to the plaintiff's registered mark 'Her-Mony"
and had observed that the marks adopted by both the plaintiff and the defendant are generic in nature and rejected the relief of temporary injunction. Upon representing the plaint before this Court and being registered in the present number no changed circumstances are demonstrated. In fact what has been urged before the earlier Court has been reiterated and only with some new documents that has been filed which does not in any manner indicate that the registration of the plaintiff's mark is in exclusivity to all other marks and 34 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 defendant by using her registered mark 'Her Money Talks' has been infringing upon the plaintiff's mark.
17. The defendant in the course of her evidence has produced the printouts of various articles published in her website hermoneytalks.com marks at Ex.D.21 to D.51. I have gone through these articles and in all these articles the defendant deals with financial management and how to achieve the finance growths. In repose to it the plaintiff has produced printouts of articles written by her about her brand and some of the articles which are at Ex.P.18. On perusal of the same the nature of services rendered by the plaintiff is entirely different from that of the services that has been rendered by the defendant. Thus it is amply clear that the activities undertaken by the defendant does not in any manner infringe upon the registered work mark and logo of the plaintiff and the logos of both the plaintiff and defendant are exclusively different and distinctly separate and there is no deceptive similarity what so ever. Even in the word marks of plaintiff Her Mony it comprises of two words Her and Mony separated with '-'. On the other hand the word mark of a defendant is a continuous word HERMONEYTALKS without any spaces. The phonetic similarity appears only to the extent of Her-Money and not 35 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 the entire word mark. As already mentioned above the term Her-Money is a generic term which respect to which no exclusivity can be claimed. Therefore under these circumstances and after considering the evidence on record it can be clearly held without hesitation that there is no infringement whatsoever by the defendant in use of the schedule 'B' mark against the plaintiff's registered schedule 'A' mark and there is no similarity between both the marks entitling the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed. Accordingly I answer Issue No.1 in the Negative.
17. ISSUE No.2:- In view of the findings arrived under issue No.1 calling upon the defendant to render accounts on the profits earned out of use of the deceptively similar mark as that of the plaintiff would not arise. Moreover the plaintiff has not placed on record any cogent and satisfactory evidence to show that the defendant by using the deceptively similar mark has earned upon profits of the plaintiff resulting in revenue loss to her so as to make her liable to render accounts as prayed. Accordingly this Issue will not survive for consideration and the same is answered accordingly.36
Com.OS.No.1732/2024
18. ISSUE No.3:- In view of the finding arrived under Issue Nos.1 and 2 the plaintiff would not be entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed. Accordingly I answer Issue No.3 in the Negative.
19. ISSUE No.4:- For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following.
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
Office to send soft copy of the judgment to respective parties on their email if furnished.
[Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me then pronounced in the Open Court, dated this the 4h day of February 2026] ARJUN Digitally signed by ARJUN SRINATH SRINATH MALLUR Date: 2026.02.04 MALLUR 17:31:12 +0530 (ARJUN. S. MALLUR) LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
PW-1 Mr. Ratnasri Karra
37
Com.OS.No.1732/2024
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the User Affidavit dated 05.10.2018.
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of trade mark certificate bearing No.4542317 dated 25.07.2023.
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of trade mark certificate bearing No.3218164 dated 25.07.2023.
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of trade mark certificate bearing No.4496073 dated 25.07.2023.
Ex.P.5 Certified copy of trade mark certificate bearing No.4496074 dated 25.07.2023.
Ex.P.6 Invoice dated 28.02.2013 raised by Credence Fiduciary Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ex.P.7 Invoice dated 04.08.2014 raised by V Kiranmayi.
Ex.P.8 Invoice dated 14.04.2015 raised by V C CIRCLE. Ex.P.9 Invoice dated 06.07.2015 raised by M/s.Creative Network.
Ex.P.10 Invoice dated 17.08.2016 raised by V Kiranmayi.
Ex.P.11 Printout of the mail dated 12.02.2014 sent by Anu Seth to the plaintiff.
Ex.P.12 Printout of the receipt generated by Facebook Ads team dated 31.01.2016.
Ex.P.13 Printout of page transparency of plaintiff Facebook account.
Ex.P.14 Printout of the article dated 13.07.2015 38 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 published on the plaintiff website. Ex.P.15 Receipts issues by Global Incubation Services.
(10 in number) Ex.P.16 Printout of plaintiff's Facebook account page. Ex.P.17 Printout of details of plaintiff Facebook creation page.
Ex.P.18 Printout of the articles written by the plaintiff about her brand.
Ex.P.19 Printout of the website of the plaintiff. Ex.P.20 Printout of the services rendered by the plaintiff, testimonials of the quality of services and screenshots of the testimonials. Ex.P.21 Printout of screenshots of the events plaintiff delivering training sessions and talks. Ex.P.22 Printout of the screenshot of the defendant website.
Ex.P.23 Copy of the legal notice dated 16.04.2020. Ex.P.24 Copy of the trade mark application filed by the defendant with respect to word mark - subject to admissibility.
Ex.P.25 Copy of the trade mark application filed by the defendant with respect to device mark - subject to admissibility.
Ex.P.26 Printout of the first examination report with regard to defendant word mark issued by Registrar of Trade Mark.
Ex.P.27 Printout of the first examination report with regard to defendant device mark issued by Registrar of Trade Mark.
Ex.P.28 Printout of the invoices with respect to usage of 39 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 schedule A mark by the plaintiff.
Ex.P.29 Copy of the plaint filed in O.S.1399/2021. Ex.P.30 Copy of the rectification application No.4496073 filed before Trade Mark Registry. Ex.P.31 Copy of the objections filed by defendant to the said application.
Ex.P.32 Copy of the order passed in O.S.1399/2021 dated 02.12.2024.
Ex.P.33 Certificate u/S 63(4)(C) of BSA, 2023 with respect to the electronic evidence produced.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT DW-1 Mr. Nisary Mahesh LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Ex.D.1 Printout of the registration confirmatin of the plaintiff on the portal www.hermoneytalks.com Ex.D.2 Copy of the plaintiff;s profile registered and displayed with www.hermoneytalk.com Ex.D.3 Copy of the email dated 24.11.2019 sent by the defendant to plaintiff Ex.D.4 Copy of the email dated 24.11.2019 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant Ex.D.5 Copy of the email dated 29.11.2019 sent by the defendant 40 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 Ex.D.6 Copy of the email dated 30.11.2019 sent by the plaintiff to defendant Ex.D.7 Copy of the email dated 01.04.2020 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff Ex.D.8 Copy of reply the email dated 01.04.2020 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant Ex.D.9 Copy of the email dated 01.04.2020 sent by the defendant to plaintiff Ex.D.10 Copy of the email dated 01.04.2020 sent by the plaintiff Ex.D.11 True extracts of whatsapp text messges between the plaintiff and the defendant Ex.D.12 Copy of the extracts of the text messages in the whatsapp group "HerMoneyTalks Group 1"
Ex.D.13 Printout of the counter statement and annexed documents filed in the Trade Mark Registry Ex.D.14 The printout carrying the mark her-mony at the top is plaintiff registered trade mark and the mark hermoneytalks in the bottom is the mark of the defendant Ex.D.15 Copy of the certificate of Incorporation dated 27.05.2016. (Page-28) Ex.D.16 Copy of the printout of the portal 'www.hermoney.com'. (Page.29-32) Ex.D.17 Printout of the homepage of the portal 'www.hermoney.ie'. (Page.33-38) Ex.D.18 Printout of the home page of the portal 'www.hermoney.de'. (Page.39-47) Ex.D.19 Printout of the home page of the portal 'www.hermoneymoves.com'. (Page.48-58) 41 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 Ex.D.20 Printout of the portal 'www.hisandhermoney.com'. (Page.59-66) Ex.D.21 Printout of the Article titled 'Four Little known insights into how women in India manage Money' dated April 29, 2019. (Page.73-86) Ex.D.22 Printout of the Article Titled 'Why Women shy away from taking personal loans' dated April 17, 2019. (Page.87-97) Ex.D.23 Printout of the Article titled "Your Money:
Golden Rules for a successful entrepreneur"
dated 30th April, 2019. (Page.98-107) Ex.D.24 Printout of the Article "Why time value of money is important in financial planning"
dated June 11, 2019. (Page.108-116) Ex.D.25 Printout of Article titled 'How to use Net Present Value to determine your investment' dated 11th June, 2019. (Page.117-126) Ex.D.26 Printout of Article titled 'Budget 2019: 7 key expectations of women' from Nirmala Sitharaman's Budget' dated June 30, 2019. (Page.127-136) Ex.D.27 Printout of Article titled 'Mutual Funds : To stay invested or exit? Check these four points first', dated August 13, 2019. (Page.137-148) Ex.D.28 Article titled '4 unique ways to fund your higher education abroad' dated November 2, 2019. (Page.149-158) Ex.D.29 Printout of Article titled 'How to build a portfolio that matches your risk appetite' dated October 15, 2019. (Page.159-168) Ex.D.30 Printout of Article titled 'Why you need an indemnity health insurance' dated November 42 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 1, 2019. (Page.169-178) Ex.D.31 Printout of Article titled 'Are you a risk-averse investor? Here is a check-list' dated November 6, 2019. (Page.179-188) Ex.D.32 Printout of Article titled 'MCLR or External Benchmarks: Which is better for loans?' dated December 19, 2019. (Page.189-197) Ex.D.33 Printout of Article titled 'From Auto to BFSI, four sectors under stress: Invest or avoid in 2020' dated December 27, 2019. (Page.198-
207) Ex.D.34 Printout of Article titled 'Is Bharat Bond ETF a good investment bet? Here is what you need to know' dated January 1, 2020. (Page.208-
219) Ex.D.35 Printout of Article titled 'What is Opportunity Cost and how it can help you take better investment decisions' dated January 18, 2020. (Page.220-229) Ex.D.36 Printout of Article titled 'Top 5 Financial gifts for your valentine this Valentine's Day' dated 14 Feb 2020. (Page.230-240) Ex.D.37 Printout of Article titled 'Investing in fluctuating markets: Buy, hold or exit?' dated June 3, 2020. (Page.241-251) Ex.D.38 Printout of Article titled 'How to build DIY Insurance corpus' dated June 9, 2020.
(Page.252-261) Ex.D.39 Printout of Article titled 'Stock Market Investment: Top 4 sectors to invest in right now; Here's why' dated June 22, 2020.
(Page.262-271) 43 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 Ex.D.40 Printout of Article titled '4 financial planning mistakes you should avoid in the post-covid world' dated July 5, 2020. (Page.272-281) Ex.D.41 Printout of Article titled 'Protecting return;
Do's and don'ts of portfolio diversification' dated June 19, 2020. (Page.282-291) Ex.D.42 Printout of Article titled 'Rules of Inheritance:
Know how to transfer property in your name' dated July 1, 2020. (Page.292-301) Ex.D.43 Printout of Article titled 'Fixed Income: Key things to know before your invest in bonds' dated August 26, 2020. (Page.302-312) Ex.D.44 Printout of Article titled 'Your Money: A few technical indicators that can help identify market trends' dated 22 September, 2020. (Page.313-322) Ex.D.45 Printout of Article titled 'Your Money: Know how balanced mutual funds operate' dated 30 September, 2020. (Page.323-331) Ex.D.46 Printout of Article titled 'Why you will never go wrong with real estate investment' dated October 27, 2020. (Page.332-341) Ex.D.47 Printout of Article titled 'New RBI guidelines on loan moratorium: what should borrowers do?' dated September 26, 2020. (Page.342-353) Ex.D.48 Printout of Article titled 'Options trading: Know the essentials of call and put options' dated October 14, 2020. (Page.354-361) Ex.D.49 Printout of Article titled 'Life Insurance: How to calculate returns on insurance policies' dated October 20, 2020. (Page.362-372) 44 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 Ex.D.50 Printout of Article titled 'Index funds: A low-
cost, low risk investment' dated November 20, 2020. (Page.373-382) Ex.D.51 Printout of Article titled 'Debt fund: Know when you should invest in liquid funds' dated December 29, 2020. (Page.383-390) Ex.D.52 Copy of email dated 17 June 2020 from NASSCOM Intimating the selection of the defendant's business. (Page.391-393) Ex.D.53 Copy of the Certificate of Incorporation dated 22.03.2021. (Page.454) Ex.D.54 Copy of Certificate of Incorporation dated 13 May 2021. (Page.455) Ex.D.55 Copy of the Trademark Status Report of 'HER MONEY' (Application Number 3609219).
(Page.456-457) Ex.D.56 Printout of the Google search results for the expression 'Her Money'. (Page.458-468) Ex.D.57 Copy of the examination report issued by the Registrar of Trademarks against the Trademark application made by the plaintiff. (Page.469-
470) Ex.D.58 Copy of the reply dated 07.08.2020 submitted by the defendant against the examination report. (Page.471-474) Ex.D.59 Copy of the Status report for the trademark application 4496073. (Page.475) Ex.D.60 Printout of the Trademark Registry portal showing the status of the Trademark application number 3609219. (Page.476) Ex.D.60( Examination report issued to plaintiff by the
a) TM Registry dated 24.06.2017. (Page.477) 45 Com.OS.No.1732/2024 Ex.D.60( Examination report issued to plaintiff by the
b) TM Registry dated 24.06.2017. (Page.478) Ex.D.61 Reply to examination report filed by the plaintiff dated 03.11.2017. (Page.479-485) (ARJUN. S. MALLUR) LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
46