Bangalore District Court
Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories vs Saptagiri Packers on 11 July, 2025
KABC010172082020
Presented on : 05-10-2020
Registered on : 05-10-2020
Govt. of Karnataka TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI,
B.A. LL.B.(Spl)
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.No.4714/2020
PLAINTIFF/S : M/s. Venkateshwara Fine Chem
Laboratories
A Partnership firm having its office
at No. 113, 1st Main, Ashok Nagar,
Behind Widia, 14th K.M. Tumkur
Road, Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru-73.
Hereinafter Represented By its
Partner, Mr.M.S.Mahadevappa.
[By Sri. H.S, Advocate]
2 OS.No.4714/ 2020
/Vs/
DEFENDANT/S 1 M/s. Saptagiri Packers
A Proprietary concern having its
office at Plot No.8, Mayur Nagar,
Andrahalli Main Road, Peenya 2nd
Stage, Bangalore-560091.
Represented by its Proprietor.
2 Smt. Manjula B
W/o. Chikkanna
Aged major, at Plot No-8,
Mayur Nagar, Andrahalli Main Road
Peenya 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560091.
(By Sri. NV Advocate
For D1, D2)
Date of Institution of the suit : 27-07-2020
Nature of the Suit : Injunction
Date of commencement of : 27.06.2023
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 11.07.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
4 11 14
(GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI)
VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
3 OS.No.4714/ 2020
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or any persons claiming under them in any manner either directly or indirectly from passing off its goods/ products in the name of NEW DIAMOND by using marketing materials, products and boxes of plaintiff and to direct the defendants to render true and correct account of all the profits earned by them by using impugned marketing materials/ goods of plaintiff and to pay such amount to the plaintiff which may be found due on such account being taken from the date of the suit till the date of actual realization. 4 OS.No.4714/ 2020
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as follows:-
It is averred in the plaint that, plaintiff is a firm engaged in manufacturing of synthetic food colour preparations, liquid colour preparations, synthetic flavours, caramel, cake Gel, custard powder, baking powder etc and it is having its office in the address mentioned in the cause title of the plaint. Plaintiff has been manufacturing and selling the said products solely as well as through its authorised dealers and distributors since from 1994 under trade name of DIAMOND. The main area of sales is throughout South India and said products have gained lot of goodwill and commercial reputation domestically with over more than 300 satisfied dealers spread over the South India and it has earned trust of users across the state. Plaintiff has earned good name 5 OS.No.4714/ 2020 and reputation for its quality products. It has obtained certificate of Registration of trademark under clause 29 of Trade Marks Act 1999 in the name of DIAMOND issued by Trade Mark Registry vide its order dated 18.06.2005 which has been renewed from time to time which is valid till the year 2022. It is also registered with Bureau of Indian Standard Authority, Goods and Service Tax Authority and Food Safety and Standard Authority of India. Plaintiff has exclusive right to prevent others from committing any act infringement of name DIAMOND by using identical or deceptively similar trading style/ name of plaintiff. It has been advertising its business and trademark in various states relating to industry from time to time. It recently came to 6 OS.No.4714/ 2020 the knowledge of the plaintiff that, a firm by name M/s Sri.Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories having its office at plot No.8 Mayur Nagar Andrahalli Main Road Peenya 2 nd Stage Bangalore carrying on business of manufacturing and sales of products identical to the products sold by the plaintiff and products of the said Firm are packaged and sold by adopting deceptively similar and identical style and package including wordings and designs of the plaintiff. The said firm was registered in the name of one Asha D/o Chikkanna who is non other than husband of defendant No. 2. Sri. Chikkanna was regular supplier of carton boxes to the plaintiff, but he was well acquainted with the products of the plaintiff firm and many of customers of plaintiff 7 OS.No.4714/ 2020 along with few of the employees of the plaintiff firm have copied the products of the plaintiff firm and started his own business in the name of Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories with not only similar products, but also similar packaging to that of plaintiff. Plaintiff contacted the said firm and requested not to use the trademark for their products which has been straight away rejected by the defendants. The plaintiff filed complaint to the police who have registered case against the defendants on 22.05.2020 and raid was conducted on the premises of M/s Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories on the same day and seized all products and packages which were exact replica of products and packages used by the plaintiff. 8 OS.No.4714/ 2020
But inspite of said raid, defendants threatened to continue the production of goods in the said name. Plaintiff without having any option filed the suit bearing O.S.No.2570/2020 on the file of City Civil Judge Bangalore (CCH-10) seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant, its servants and men and agents and court has granted temporary injunction. The said suit is still pending for consideration and an order of temporary injunction is in operation. The said case came up for hearing on 15.05.2020. The defendant No.2 who is none other than the wife of Chikkanna and defendant No.3 who is mother of Asha came to know about order and defendant threatened that they would start the same business in the same brand name of NEW 9 OS.No.4714/ 2020 DIAMOND under the same banner Sapthagiri Packers and court order would not come in their way. The address of both defendant No.1 and M/s Sri Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories against whom injunction order in O.S.No.2570/2020 is operating is one and same. The defendant No.1 concealing all the above facts and also got the trade mark registered in the name and style of NEW DIAMOND and got registered GST in the month of July 2017. The defendant No.1 who supplied cotton boxes to the plaintiff in order to overcome the business of the plaintiff or overcome the injunction order and spoil the business of the plaintiff now come up with a defence that, it has registered the said firm in the name of NEW DIAMOND. The business of 10 OS.No.4714/ 2020 firm under the title of Saptagiri Packers is only supply of package materials. Plaintiff has also filed necessary application seeking rectification of jurisdictional trademark registry and said proceedings are pending for consideration before Registry. Due to registration of trademark of defendant in deceptively similar fashion, it has lead to dilution of trade mark of plaintiff thereby affecting registered trademark and also affecting goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff existing in the market. The defendants have adopted the logo which is deceptively similar that of the plaintiff's logo and prefixed extra word New to the logo of plaintiff DIAMOND which clearly shows malice of defendants in destroying reputation and good 11 OS.No.4714/ 2020 name of plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against defendants.
3. Defendants have filed written statement and contented that, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on fact and liable to be dismissed. It is contended that, defendant is proprietorship firm which came into existence for preparation for colouring food and beverages and said firm is having its own customers all over India running successfully its business. The defendant firm has got necessary certificates and licenses from the concerned authority and it is legally running its firm. The plaintiff could not be able to tolerate the growth of the defendants and filed false suit against the defendants alleging that, the defendants had copied the trademark of 12 OS.No.4714/ 2020 the plaintiff firm and also copied the logo of the plaintiff and manufacturing goods which are being manufactured by plaintiff. The defendants have not at all copied any Trade Mark or logo of plaintiff. The defendant firm is having its own trademark and logo having its own customers all over India. The goods and services of the defendant firm are entirely different from the plaintiff. There are number of companies existing in India to manufacture same goods and services and defendant firm is also doing the same under its own trademark and logo. The defendant firm is manufacturing its own products and not copying from any company or firm. If at all defendant copied the trade mark and logo of plaintiff, the concerned authorities could not have issued the 13 OS.No.4714/ 2020 license to defendant firm. Without knowing the said fact, plaintiff has filed false suit against the defendants. Plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and filed false suit bearing O.S.No.2570/2020 by suppressing material facts and this is another round of litigation filed by the plaintiff who is in the habit of filing false cases against the persons who are growing up better than plaintiff. Plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and suit is barred by limitation. Plaintiff has not paid proper Court fee and suit is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of parties and there is no cause of action. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
14 OS.No.4714/ 2020
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, my predecessor in office has framed following:
I SSU ES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have committed an act of "Passing Off" by selling the same products (sold by the plaintiff) under the logo "NEW DIAMOND" which resembles the registered trade mark "DIAMOND"
(which belongs to the plaintiff) misleading the general public by make believing that the products of the defendants sold under the logo "NEW DIAMOND" are the products of the plaintiff ?
2) Whether the defendants prove that the suit is time barred ?
3) Whether the defendants prove that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient ?
4) Whether the defendants prove that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for account of profits made by the defendants by committing an act of passing off as alleged by the plaintiff ?
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any of the relief claimed in the plaint ?
7) What decree or order ?
15 OS.No.4714/ 2020
5. Plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked ExP-1 to P-38 and closed the evidence. Defendant No.2 herself examined as DW-1 and got marked ExD-1 to D8 and closed the evidence.
6. Learned Counsels for both parties have filed their written arguments. I have gone through pleadings, evidence and written arguments placed on record.
7. My findings on the above issue are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative; Issue No.2: In the Negative;
Issue No.3: In the Affirmative; Issue No.4: In the Negative;
Issue No.5: In the Affirmative; Issue No.6: In the Affirmative; Issue No.7 :As per the final order, for the following:16 OS.No.4714/ 2020
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1:- It is sum and substance of pleadings and evidence of plaintiff, it is firm engaged in manufacturing synthetic food colour preparations, liquid colours preparations, synthetic flavours, caramel, cake gel, custard powder, baking powder etc in the name and style of DIAMOND having its registered office and selling its products through its authorized dealers and distributors since the year 1994 and firm has been selling said products under brand throughout South India and earned good name and reputation domestically over more than 300 satisfied dealer spread over south India and has earned trust of users across the state. According to the evidence of PW-1, plaintiff firm has obtained Certificate of Registration of Trade Mark under clause 29 of Trade Marks Act in the name of DIAMOND issued by Trade Mark Registry vide order dated 18.06.2005 which has been renewed from time to time since the date of registration which is valid till 2022. He 17 OS.No.4714/ 2020 has further stated that, plaintiff firm is a registered firm under said trade name with Bureau of Indian Standards Authority, Goods Service Tax Authority, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. According to his evidence, defendants have started M/s Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories at Plot No.8, Mayur Nagar Andrahalli Main Road, Peenya 2nd Stage, Bangalore carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of products identical to the products of plaintiff and its products are packaged and sold by adopting deceptively similar and identical style and package including wordings and designs and identical style and package to that of plaintiff firm. One Chikkanna is husband of defendant No.2 was regular supplier of carton boxes to the plaintiff firm and he was well acquainted with products of plaintiff firm and many of customers of plaintiff and he along with few employees of plaintiff firm copied products of plaintiff and started own business in the said name by producing similar products for which he has filed complaint to the 18 OS.No.4714/ 2020 jurisdictional police who have registered FIR and conducted raid on 22.05.2020 and inspite of same, defendants have continued the production with same name and brand.
9. On appreciating the cross examination of PW-1, he has admitted that, if there is identical trade mark registered in the same name and logo, another trade mark certificate will not be issued. The concerned cross examination portion is as under:
It is true that if there is identical trade mark is registered in same name and logo, another trade mark certificate will not be issued.
He has further admitted in his cross examination that, defendant is doing business in the name and style of Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories, but he has voluntarily stated that, the defendants are doing business in the name of NEW DIAMOND. The concerned cross examination portion is as under: 19 OS.No.4714/ 2020
It is true defendant is doing business in the name and style of Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories. Witness volunteers they are doing business in the name of New Diamond.
10. In further cross-examination of PW.1, he has admitted that, the defendants by applying obtained the Trade Mark and logo as New Diamond and after obtaining the permission from the concerned authorities, they are manufacturing food colours. The concerned cross-examination portion is as under:-
It is true defendants by
applying have obtained a
trademark on logo as New
Diamond. It is true defendants
by obtaining permission from
concern authorities
manufacturing the food colours.
20 OS.No.4714/ 2020
He has also admitted that, he has filed suit bearing No.2570/2020 for damages against the defendants which is pending on the file of CCH-10.
11. According to his version, the defendants are manufacturing their own products under the trademark and logo of New Diamond and doing business in the market which is illegal and he has given complaint to the Trade Mark authority for illegal use of his trademark and he has not produced the complaint copy to show that, he has filed the complaint to the Trademark Authority.
12. On appreciating the evidence of DW.1, she has denied the contents of plaint in her chief examination affidavit and stated that, their Trademark has been registered as 'New Diamond' under Section 23(2), Rule 56 (1) of Trademark Act, 1999. By registering of trademark certificate of Registration of Trade Mark 21 OS.No.4714/ 2020 and they have also taken the food safety certificate from the Government of Karnataka for manufacturing of food items and same is valid from 12-07-2021 to 11-07-2026 and they are also maintaining and manufacturing standard food items. Even she has also stated that, they have also got GST Registration certificate from Government of India in the name of Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories and running the business by paying GST to Government of India and also obtained VAT certificate from the concerned authority and their products are very good products and many of the customers are placing orders to supply their products and they are also issuing tax invoices. Her evidence shows that, M/s. Sapthagiri Packers is the old company which came into existence in the year 2004 vide document Registration No.783/2004-05 which is engaged in the manufacture of cotton boxes and supplying the same 22 OS.No.4714/ 2020 to the customers since more than 20 years which has its own reputation in the market and Trademark. The Government of Karnataka has issued certificate to the defendants firm and have taken license from the concerned authorities and necessary certificates and they have not copied any trademark of the plaintiff and if they copied the trademark of plaintiff, the concerned authority would not have issued trademark certificate and other relevant documents to the defendants.
13. The defendants have produced certified copy of Trademark certificate, certified copy of Registration certificate under FSSA, certified copy of GST registration certificate, certificate dated 31-07-2004 issued by the Government of Karnataka to establish industries, certificate issued by the Directorate of Industries and Commerce dated 12-01-2007, GST 23 OS.No.4714/ 2020 certificate dated 12-07-2023, VAT Certificate dated 30-10-2008 and 65-B Certificate which are marked as Ex.D1 to 8.
14. In the cross-examination of DW.1, she has stated, in the year 2004, she started business and in the year 2020, Food safety certificate was obtained. She does not know the date of applying for registration of Trademark certificate and in which year, trademark certificate was issued and under which clause, it was issued. Even she does not know the injunction operating against her in O.S.NO.2570/2020. She does not know that, she had obtained independent GST certificate in respect of defendant No.1 concern. She has admitted that, the defendant No.1 was manufacturing cartoon box. She has denied that, due to injunction order in O.S.NO.2570/2020, she has started business in the 24 OS.No.4714/ 2020 name of New Diamond for manufacturing of Food colour products. She has admitted that, they are carrying food colouring business since from 2021.
15. On appreciating the documents produced by the plaintiff, he has produced the certified copy of the partnership deed as per Ex.P1 and as per the said document, plaintiff Mr.M.S.Mahadevappa and his wife Smt. P.Vanaja are the partners and constituted the partnership firm in the name of M/s. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories having registered office firm at No.113, 1st Main Road, Ashok Nagar, behind Widia, Nagasandra Post, Bengaluru engaged in the manufacturing blending of food grade colours (colour mixing) by investing capital of Rs.1,20,000/- by contributing equally and the said partnership firm has gained Good Will and there is equal share of loss and profit. Ex.P2 is the certificate issued by Registrar of 25 OS.No.4714/ 2020 Trademarks under Sec.23 (2) Rule 62(1) of Trademark and it is registered in the name of the plaintiff in the office of Registrar of Trademarks vide certificate bearing No.1121934 dated 29-07-2004. They have also produced Ex.P3 license issued by Bureau of Indian Standards bearing No. CM/L/6072358 for the purpose of running Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories for producing Synthetic Food Colour preparations and mixtures and it is valid up to 14-02- 2021. They have also produced license No.11219331001081 issued by the Government of Karnataka in FSSA Act, 2006 for running Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories which is valid from 25-09-2019 to 24-09-2024. They have also produced GST Registration certificate as per Ex.P5 which is valid from 01-07-2017. They have produced the certified copy of complaint filed to Rajagopala Nagar Police Station about the illegal use of logo of the 26 OS.No.4714/ 2020 plaintiff company by the defendants in the name of New Diamond Label and logo and production of similar products for which FIR has been registered in crime No.141/2020 under Sec.51(A) and 63 of Copyright Act and Section 420 of IPC against Smt. Asha who is the defendant No.2. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P8 which is containing the specification of products which will be affixed on the products and there is a symbol of Diamond and it has been written Diamond Synthetic Food Colour Preparations and Diamond is the logo used by the plaintiff firm. Ex.P8 to P-20 are the same documents. Ex.P-21 to P36 are tax invoice receipts of Venkateshwara Food Chem Laboratories and the symbol of diamond is the logo of the company under which the products are being manufactured. Ex.P37 is the certified copy of the charge sheet and plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the order sheet in C.C.No.18830/20. 27 OS.No.4714/ 2020
16. On appreciating the documents produced by the defendants, the defendant No.1 Smt. Asha has taken certificate from Registrar of Trademarks in the name of New Diamond as per Ex.D1 bearing Trade Mark No.4073482 dated 31-01-2019. She has taken certificate under FSS Act from Government of Karnataka and she has also named the company as Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories. Ex.D3 is the GST Registration Certificate bearing Reg.No. 29BRKPC1323EIZ7 and trade name is mentioned as Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories. She has also produced Form GSTR 3B Forms. she has produced Ex.D4 which is the certificate taken in the name of Sapthagiri Packers and Ex.D5 is the certificate of Sapthagiri Packers issued by Directors of Industries and Commerce. Ex.D6 is the GST Registration certificate bearing Reg.No.29ACHPC9223CIZV in the name of Dodda Anjanappa Chikkahanumaiah which 28 OS.No.4714/ 2020 is the proprietorship concern. Ex.D7 is the VAT certificate in the name of G.Chikkahanumaiah. It is clear from Ex.D1 to D3 that the name of their firm is shown as Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories. As per Ex.P2 Trademark certificate, the plaintiff firm is registered in the name of Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories with logo of diamond. Ex.P4 also shows that the firm of the plaintiff is registered in the name of Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories and it is producing the Synthetic Food Colour preparations, liquid colour preparations, Synthetic flavours, Caramel, Cake Gel, custard power, Baking powder, flavours and essences and GST is also registered in the same name. But the defendants have also registered the name of their firm in the same name and there is no change in the name which is clear from Ex.D2 and Ex.D3. Even the defendants 29 OS.No.4714/ 2020 themselves have admitted in their chief affidavit that they have undertaken the preparation of colouring food and beverages and only trade mark used by them is in the name and Style of New Diamond. In the cross-examination of DW.1, she has admitted that, she started business in the year 2004 and in the year 2020, Food safety certificate was obtained which goes to show that she has not obtained Food safety certificate in the year 2020, even though she started business in the year 2004. In Section 2(g) of Trademark Act "collective mark" has been defined as a trademark that distinguishes the goods or services of members of an association of persons from those of others. The association must not be a partnership as defined by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Essentially, it's a mark used by a group or organization to show that its members are associated with that group. Section 2(h) of the Trade Marks Act, 30 OS.No.4714/ 2020 1999 (India) defines "deceptively similar" in relation to trademarks. A mark is considered deceptively similar to another if it so closely resembles the other mark that it is likely to cause confusion or deceive the public.
17. In a decision reported in Mumtaz Ahmed V. Pakeera Chemicals AIR 2003 ALL 114, it is held as under:-
(I) In order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered.
They should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design and if so whether they are of such a character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to misled a person 31 OS.No.4714/ 2020 usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him.
18. In another decision reported in BDH Industries Ltd., V/s. Croydon Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2002 BOM 361, it is held that:
Apart from the structural, visual and phonetic similarity or dissimilarity, the question has to be considered from the point of view of man of average intelligence and imperfect collection. Secondly, it is to be considered as a whole and thirdly it is the question of his impression.
19. In another decision relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in Parle Products (P) Ltd., /vs/ J.P. & Co., Mysore , 1972 AIR 1359 in which it is held as under:-
1. "Two marks, exhibit when placed side by side, many and various differences vet main idea left on the mind by both may be not having the two side by side .32 OS.No.4714/ 2020
2. whether one mark in order to come to the is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are be to considered. They should be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely person usually dealing with one to accept offered to mislead the other if to him.
3. If one was not careful enough to note of the wrapper on the plaintiffs goods, two of on had seen peculiar he might easily mistake the defendants wrapper for the plaintiffs.33 OS.No.4714/ 2020
4. we hold that the defendant had infringed registered trade mark of the plaintiff and the suit of plaintiff should be decreed and an injunction granted restraining the defendant-respondent from selling or using in any manner whatsoever biscuits in wrappers similar in appearance to the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs on their packets.
20. In another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in RUSTON & HORNSBY LTD., V/s. The Zamindara Engineering Co., in 1969 SCC (2) 725 in which it is held as under:-
5. That infringement takes place not merely by exact imitation but by the use of a mark nearly resembling the registered mark as to be likely to deceive."
6. There is a deceptive resemblance between the word "RUSTON" and the word "RUSTAM" and therefore the use of 34 OS.No.4714/ 2020 the bare word. RUSTAM" constituted infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark "RUSTON"
21. In the said case, the registered trade mark RUSTON was used and the respondent pleaded that RUSTAM was infringement of RUSTON and stated that the words RUSTAM INDIA were used. The trial court dismissed the suit by holding that there was no visual, phonetic similarity between the RUSTAM and RUSTON. In this case, the company of the plaintiff is registered in the name of M/s. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories with Diamond Brand.
22. Plaintiff has produced the certificate issued by Registrar of Trademark and said company is registered as Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories by using the Diamond as its logo. As per Ex.P4 under FSS Act, 2006 Government of Karnataka has issued license for the purpose of Synthetic Food Colour preparations, liquid colour preparations, Synthetic flavours, Caramel, Cake 35 OS.No.4714/ 2020 Gel, custard power, Baking powder, flavours and essences. But the defendants also got registered GST certificate under the same name as Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories. They would have chosen some other name than the name of the plaintiff's firm.
23. On perusal of Ex.P13 to Ex.P16, defendants started business at no.12, 7th cross, Patel Chennappa Industrial Estate, Peenya 2nd stage, Bangalore-91 with brand name and logo of DIAMOND ROSE, DIAMOND ORANGE, DIAMOND ORANGE RED, DIAMOND LEMON YELLOW. The plaintiff is also having same logo. Ex.P-21 to Ex.P33 are tax invoices. On careful perusal of Ex.P20, the name of the company shown as Sri.VENKATESHWARA FINE-CHEM LABORATORIES 36 OS.No.4714/ 2020 and the logo of diamond is used which is identical and it will lead to confusion of customers and dealers and said name has been selected and the company started in the said name with intention to cheat the plaintiff. So, I hold that, the plaintiff has proved the defendants have committed an act of passing off, of buying and selling the products under the logo of NEW DIAMOND which resembles the registered Trade Mark of plaintiff and it will mislead to the General Public and the said logo has been used only to cheat the plaintiff. So, I answer the Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
24. ISSUE NO.2:- The defendants have taken a contention that the suit is barred by time, but there are no materials to show that, how the suit is barred by limitation, because after coming to know about the use of same logo by the defendants, plaintiff filed 37 OS.No.4714/ 2020 the complaint to the police on 22-05-2020 and registered FIR and immediately, he has filed the suit in the same year and it is not barred by limitation. Hence, the contention of the defendants is not acceptable. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 in Negative.
25. ISSUE NO.3:- The plaintiff has valued the suit under Sec.26(C) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act under Article 1(i) of the Schedule II of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act in respect of the relief of Mandatory Injunction and the said relief is valued at Rs.1,000/-but he has also sought the relief of Mandatory Injunction seeking direction to the defendants to render true and truthful account of all the profits earned by him using impugned marketing materials and goods of that of the plaintiff and direction to the defendants to 38 OS.No.4714/ 2020 pay to the plaintiff such amount as may be found due, on such account being taken from the date of this suit till the date of actual realization. The plaintiff has not valued said relief and he has not paid the court fee and with regard to relief (ii). So court fee can be collected at the time of drawing decree and he is liable to pay court fee on relief (ii) of the plaint. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
26. ISSUE NO.4:- The defendants have contention that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Since the lis between the plaintiff and defendants for using the logo and name of the plaintiff firm and there is no necessity of 3rd person as party to the suit. Even they have taken bald contention that, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and it is not stated that, who are the necessary parties to 39 OS.No.4714/ 2020 this suit. Hence, this contention of defendants is not acceptable. So, I answer Issue No.4 in the Negative.
27. ISSUE NO.5:- The plaintiff has claimed the account of profits made by the plaintiff by committing the act of passing off. Admittedly, it is proved from the evidence of plaintiff that, the defendants used logo of plaintiff firm and name of the plaintiff firm and manufactured similar products to that of the plaintiff company and caused loss to the plaintiff company for which the plaintiff is claiming the account of profits which is required to be decided by holding separate enquiry and in this suit, it cannot be decided. However, the plaintiff is entitled for the said amount, for the loss caused by the defendant where a separate enquiry is to be done. Hence, I answer Issue No.5 in the Affirmative. 40 OS.No.4714/ 2020
28. ISSUE NO.6:-For the reasons stated above, I hold that, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction and there shall be a separate enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for the loss caused by the defendants. So, I answer Issue No.6 in the Affirmative.
29. ISSUE NO.7:- For the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
Decree of permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or any person claiming under them in any manner, whatsoever directly or indirectly from passing off goods/ products as that of 41 OS.No.4714/ 2020 the plaintiff's goods/ products in the name of NEW DIAMOND and under the brand by using marketing materials , products and boxes as that of the plaintiff.
There shall be a separate enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for deciding the profits earned by the defendants by using his trademark and logo and defendants shall render true and faithful accounts as of the profits earned by them by using the said trade mark and logo of the plaintiff.
Office is hereby directed to draw decree after payment of court fee on the relief No.2 of the plaint.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed and computerized by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 11th day of July, 2025) (GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.42 OS.No.4714/ 2020
AN NEXURE
1. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff/s P.W.1 : M.S.Mahadevappa
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Plaintiff/s Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of Partnership deed dated 01-09-
2001 Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of Trade Mark Certificate Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of Endorsement No.27 dated 16-02-2021 Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of license.
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of Registration Certificate of plaintiff company.
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of complaint registered at Rajagopalanagar Police Station.
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of FIR.
Certified copies of Ex.P6 to P-18 marked in Ex.P.8 - 20 : O.S.NO.2570/2020 Certified copies of Ex.P19 to P-34 marked in Ex.P.21-36 : O.S.NO.2570/2020.
Ex.P.37 Certified copy of charge sheet filed by Rajagopal : Nagar Police Station.
Ex.P.38 Certified copy of the order sheet in :
C.C.NO.18830/20
3. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendants DW.1 : Smt.Manjula.B 43 OS.No.4714/ 2020
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Defendants Ex.D.1 Certified copy of trade mark certificate.
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of registration certificate under FSSA Ex.D.3 Certified copy of GST registration certificate (15 pages) in series.
Ex.D.4 Certificate dated 31.07.2004 issued by the Government of Karnataka to establish industries.
Ex.D.5 Certificate issued by the
Directorate of Industries and
Commerce dated 12.01.2007.
Ex.D.6 GST certificate dated 12.07.2023
Ex.D.7 VAT certificate dated 30.10.2008
Ex.D.8 Certificate under Section 65-B of
Indian Evidence Act
VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.