Bangalore District Court
Sarvodaya Sevabhavi Samstha vs Voice Of Stray Dogs/Twb on 20 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.42]
PRESENT: SRI.BASAVARAJ B.COM., LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil Judge
Dated this the 20th day of January 2018
O.S.No.9297/2014
PLAINTIFF : Sarvodaya Sevabhavi Samstha
Represented by the trustee Mr.Shitalkumar
Gaikwad,
Aged 39 years
S/o Santharam Gaikwad
BBMP-ABC Center,
Government Veterinary Hospital Campus
Queen's Road
Bangalore
(By Sri.V.S., Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Voice of Stray Dogs/TWB
Amatra Consulting Pvt.Ltd. (CIN)
U74210KA2005PTC037036
Represented by its Managing Director
Mr.Rakesh Shukla
The TWB Building No.4062
19th Main Road
HAL 2nd Stage
Bangalore-560 008
2. Jaysal Jagadish
Managing Partner M/s Unplugged
India
2 OS No.9297/2014
No.126, Railway Parallel Road
Kumarapark West
Bangalore-560 020
(D1 By Srinivas,
D2 By Sri.S.R., Advocates)
Date of Institution of the Suit: 01.12.2014
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Permanent injunction &
declaration & possession, suit mandatory injunction
for injunction)
Date of commencement of 25.02.2017
recording of evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 20.01.2018
was pronounced:
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 01 19
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 and 2 to use, publish in the banners, public domains on internets or any tickets or print showing the words "The Great Indian Dog Show" and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.2 to transfer the domain www.greatindiandogshow.com in the name of plaintiff and to pass such other reliefs.
3 OS No.9297/2014
2. The plaint averments in brief is as under:
The plaintiff is an Animal Welfare NGO registered in the year 2011 under Karnataka Trust Act and on track with their service in the year 2009 with a large team of skilled and qualified Vets as trustees rescuing, treating injured Animals and Birds under PCA Act 1960 and the plaintiff is a approved BBMP contractor chosen under KTPP Act 1999 for Birth Control Programs of Animals for conducting this Human Animal Welfare Program mentioned in the animals Birth Control (Dog) Rules 2001 since 2011 in selected wards of BBMP and various municipalities across India. As per the Page No.4 Clause (U) of the agreement between plaintiff and BBMP, it is mandatory to conduct publicity campaign for street dog management and awareness program along with birth control program in and all zone and wards of the Municipality(BBMP).
The defendant No.1 is a Managing Director of a registered private limited company 4 OS No.9297/2014 CINU74210KA2005PTCO37036 that is not related to animal welfare and registered as dog company and consulting a business house and runs sub business activities for dog under the pretext of compassion under the name "Voice of Stray Dogs" registered in the year 2011 and described himself as a self funded and non profit organization funded by him and also collects public funds in lakhs, and violating many sections under Veterinary Council Act, PCA Act 1960 and ABC Dog Rules 2001, showing a shelter and neither Hospital nor vets on website runs a shelter somewhere at Doddaballapur, were no public is allowed. Their business activities on Animal Welfare are non transparent and creating many doubts among the public and donor and this is possible with great promotion campaign through public domain and influencing the media hype in print and TV to raise funds. The street animals picked and rescued by the defendant No.1 and is so called non-profit organization 5 OS No.9297/2014 are funded or payment demanded from public and then outsourced to nearby veterinary clinic like M/s Cassena Vet Clinic - Inner Ring Road, Koramangala and other veterinary Clinic for treatment as a third party. From public reports my clients understands most of these dogs are euthanized or relocated by his employees and bogus reports posed on his website www.strays.in has betrayed many animal lovers and charged for criminal offences.
As per RTI obtained from BBMP - Animal Husbandry Department, it is evident that the defendant No.1 is not an authorized person/organization to pick up street dogs or collect funds or appointed by any state or central department to monitor the function of the State Government. But in their activities, he has made artificial claim for himself on his public domain.
Defendant No.2 is a close associate of defendant No.1 and his friends, who runs media partnership firm under brand name "UNPLUGGED" that designs logo, 6 OS No.9297/2014 brochure, banners, websites etc. The defendant along with his wife Mrs.Mansi Jaysal and defendant No.1 colluded with each other and recommended the Animal Welfare Board of India and closed down one of the BBMP contractors like ARF (Animal Right's Funds), AWS - (Animal Welfare Society) Hyderabad an NGO and targeted regularly many other present NGO's government officials and departments to malign their activities thereby hampering the Animal Birth Control Program in Dogs thereby threat to life to citizens of Bangalore with Animal Human conflict/dog bites and accidents.
Defendant No.2 was hired by the plaintiff during the event of "the great Indian dog show', which was conducted in the year 2012 and paid a remuneration to design the logo, brochure and mainly to register the domain www.thegreatindiandogshow.com. The plaintiff has paid Rs.25,000/- to the defendant No.2 for all these 7 OS No.9297/2014 services. The defendant No.2 has not paid any bill towards the amount received when asked for.
The plaintiff has also paid to defendant No.2 to register the domain www.thegreatindiandogshow.com in the name of plaintiff as his firm deals with web designing, but the defendant No.2 has registered the domain in his name.
The organization has reputation and good will among animal lovers in India and abroad, Govt. Departments etc. Because of the untiring social activities for the sake of awareness program of BBMP and various municipalities across India. They have conducted with the name and style the "The Great Indian Dog Show" for the first time on 15th April 2012, to promote the street dogs and to ensure citizens to adopt these dogs and thereby reduce the Dog population from the streets of Bangalore. "The Great Indian Dog Show" 2012, the first event was conducted at the plaintiff's official premises of the Government 8 OS No.9297/2014 Veterinary Campus at Queens Road, Bangalore, with large number of participants and public nearly 1000 plus attending the event. The Vice Chairman of AWBI - Dr.Chinny Krishna, Dr.Praviz Ahmed Piran, Joint Director BBMP, Shri.Jageesh Kannada Film Actor, Ms.Mansi Vasudevan, cine actress Kannada Film industry and many eminent personalities were the distinguished guests present.
During this event the plaintiff has approached the AWBI (Animal Welfare Board of India), under the Ministry of Environment and Forest to seek permission to conduct such a programme and use the logo of AWBI in the certificate issued at the event. The AWBI has granted permission vide letters dated 30.3.2012 and 2.4.2013 the conduct the event under the name of the "The Great Indian Dog Show".
To conduct such a mega event with 1000 odd audiences and 85 Indian Dogs and owners showcasing their dogs adopted form the streets and honour them 9 OS No.9297/2014 including visiting dignitaries incurred expenditure, like Branding, printing material, T.Shirts, trophies etc. All these funds were sponsored by the plaintiff's few eminent veterinary product and pharma suppliers like Brilant Pharma, Maruti Medicals, pedigree etc. The plaintiff has spent practically about Rs.2,00,000/-.
On 16.3.2013 the defendants have conducted the same show under the name "The Great Indian Dog Show" at Patel Inn. R.T.Nagar. At that time the plaintiff and their entire team were out of state for conducting the awareness and Animal Birth Control Program. Later the plaintiff has filed an application to register the name with the Trade marks Registry.
The plaintiff came to know that the defendants No.1 and 2 is going to conduct this show under the name "The Great Indian Dog Show" on 6.12.2014 at Patel's Inn, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore by posting an advertisement in defendant No.1's facebook account, his company trust account www.strays.in and the website 10 OS No.9297/2014 www.thegreatindiandogshow.com. From this it is very clear that the intension of defendants are to raise the fund by using the name of the plaintiff to deceit the public to create an impression among the public that the show is conducted by the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 and 2 are well aware of the popularity of the show conducted by the plaintiff in the year 2012. Many sponsors have come forward with helping hands to misuse the good will and reputation of the plaintiff to conduct the show and deceive the public with his fraudulent activities under the name and taking the advantages of sympathy of animal lovers to raise funds. With such a fraudulent intention of money making and it is evident from defendant No.1's website to show target of Rs.11 lakhs for the month of September 2014. It is more than enough to prove that both the defendants No.1 and 2 are trying to misrepresent the plaintiff by using the name "The Great Indian Dog Show" as business for mutual benefit.
11 OS No.9297/2014
The plaintiff being the prior user of the name "The great Indian Dog Show" in the year 2012, these defendants has no right to use the name, banners, or any other articles showing this name. The intention of these defendants is to misrepresent the name to extract the attention of the public especially among the dog lovers in Bangalore thus by misusing the reputation and good will of the plaintiff for monetary benefit of these defendants, which is clearly mentioned on the domain by conducting the event on 6th December 2014. Hence prays to decree the suit.
3. Upon service of summons, the defendant No.1 and 2 appeared before the court through their counsels and filed written statement. The defendant No.1 in the written statement contended that in fact, 'The Voice of Stray Dogs' and 'TWB' are not one and the same entity. Mr.Rakesh Shukla is the Managing Trustee of the first mentioned organization and the Founder CEO of the company known as 12 OS No.9297/2014 Amatra Consulting Pvt. Ltd. of which 'TWB' is a business name and registered trade mark. Neither of these organizations is in any way connectioned with 'The Great Indian Dog Show'. Amatra Consulting Pvt. Ltd. referred to as "The Writers Block", or "TWB" in the corporate world, has its office at the TWB Building No.4062, 19th Main, HAL II Stage, Bangalore and is a leading technical communication and training development to an enormously varied customer base, ranging from corporates drawn from the Global 500, to start ups. The Voice of Stray Dogs (VoSD) i.e. the defendant is the second organization founded by Mr.Rakesh Shukla. It is a registered as a trust and Mr.Shukla is its Managing trustee. Its office is also located at the TWB Building No.4062, 19th main, HAL II Stage, Bangalore and it is a privately run not- for-profit organization. One of its core activities is to operate India's largest and most efficient dog rescue service, which is completely free for stray dogs. Moreover, its website, www.strays.in is the world's largest website and repository of legal, data analysis and investigative information on stray 13 OS No.9297/2014 dogs. It is reiterated that neither of these organizations is in any way connected with "The Great Indian Dog Show" and upon the plaintiff's own showing, demonstrated through the documents filed by it in support with the plaint, this 'edition' of the 'The Great Indian Dog Show' was being conducted by the defendant No.2 and the other organizers of the show, entitled fully to conduct the same and use the term/name. 'The Great Indian Dog Show' for the benefit of the defendant, to honor the very genuine and committed service that it performs and provides.
The plaint filed by the plaintiff does not disclose a cause of action as against the defendant and therefore deserves to be rejected on this ground alone, in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, as against the defendant. Alternatively, on account of the defendant No.1 having been improperly joined as party in the present action, its name deserves to be struck out from the array of parties, in terms of Order I Rule 10 of CPC. The defendant No.1 is neither a necessary nor a proper 14 OS No.9297/2014 party in the present action, since it has never claimed or used the term/name, 'The Great Indian Dog Show', as its own.
The contents of paras 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint filed by the plaintiff, deserve either to be struck out altogether, or amended, on accounts of their being unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious in terms of Order VI Rule 16 of CPC. In fact, vide the said para, the plaintiff has made obviously defamatory and vicious allegations against the defendant, without as much as attempting to disclose the source of its so called knowledge as to the same. They are consequently lacking in material particulars, in additional to being obnoxious and vitriolic and therefore deserve to be struck out.
It is common knowledge within public domain that the plaintiff is not recognized by or registered with the Animal Welfare Board of India (i.e. the AWBI'), which is a statutory body established in terms of Section 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. It is pertinent that the plaintiff's contract with the BBMP filed together with the plaint, 15 OS No.9297/2014 unambiguously requires the plaintiff to obtain AWBI recognition within 3 months from the date of the said agreement, for conducting stray canine animal birth control. Hence, by not having recognition from the AWBI, the plaintiff is in breach of its contractual obligations. It is also acting in violation of law, in conducting stray canine animal birth control operations without the said recognition, because the Animal Birth Control(Dogs) Rules 2001, clearly mandate that only AWBI recognized animal welfare organizations can participate in the sterilization and immunization programmes of local authorities.
Defendant is a private nor for profit organization, perhaps the first in the country, which does not accept or has ever demanded government funds for looking after and tending to stray and ownerless animals. It is mainly funded by its managing trustee, and a small percentage of its funds are also obtained through fund raisers that the compassionate citizens of Bengaluru and the rest of the country, gladly participate in.
16 OS No.9297/2014
The defendant ensures the best possible veterinary care and support for the dogs its rescues, by sending them for treatments, surgeries, other veterinary procedures, etc. to the two best vets and veterinary hospitals at Bengaluru.
Being a private not for profit organization, it does not require any permission whatsoever, from the BBMP to carry out the rescue work done by its. Further, that it is in fact performing the fundamental duty cast upon every citizen of India by Article 51A(g) to show compassion for all living creatures.
It is well known that 'The Great Indian Dog Show' was conducted by the defendant No.2 and other organizers with him in the year 2013, and that they have consistently been using the term/name 'The Great Indian Dog Show' and operating a public facebook page by the said name, with considerable activity and posting. Except contending above, the defendant No.1 has denied remaining plaint averments. So, prays to dismiss the suit.
17 OS No.9297/2014
4. The defendant No.2 appeared before the court through his counsel and filed written statement contending that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The domain name, transfer of which has been sought was registered in the defendants' favour on 13.3.2012 as per the plaintiff's own showing. In having accepted the same and failed to protest or lodge any claim to the same earlier than filing the present suit, the plaintiff is now estopped from making a claim to the same.
It is well known that the 'The Great Indian Dog Show' was organized and conducted by the defendant and his wife in the year 2013 and that they have consistently been using the term/name, 'The Great Indian Dog Show' and operating a public face book page by the said name, with considerable activity and posting.
Defendant and his wife Mansi Jaysal have been working for the welfare and betterment of stray canines and Indian dogs for 3 years. The work that they have done in promoting adoptions, rehabilitation and care and creating awareness 18 OS No.9297/2014 has earned them tremendous good will and the trust of the compassionate citizens of Bengaluru. They have not only been using the name/term 'The Great Indian Dog Show' since the domain name registration in their favour, but in fact were using it even prior to the same, with the full knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore estopped from making a claim to the same.
It is common knowledge within public domain that the plaintiff is not recognized by or registered with the Animal Welfare Board of India, which is statutory body established in terms of Section 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. It is pertinent that the plaintiff's contract with the BBMP filed together with the plaint, unambiguously requires the plaintiff to obtain AWBI recognition within 3 months from the date of the said agreement, for conducting stray canine animal birth control. Hence, by not having recognition with 3 months from the date of the said agreement, for conducting stray canine animal birth control. Hence, by not having recognition from the AWBI, the plaintiff is in breach of its contractual 19 OS No.9297/2014 obligations. It is also acting in violation of law, in conducting stray canine animal birth control operations without the said recognition, because the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules 2001 clearly mandate that only AWBI recognized animal welfare organizations can participate in the sterilization and immunization programmes of local authorities.
In fact, the AWBI is a statutory body and the plaintiff has tarnished its fair name by stating what it has. No amount was ever paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for designing logo, brochure or for registering domain. Neither did the plaintiff ever protest in writing against the domain name registration, which happened on 13.3.2012, or demand an alteration in status of the same. It is therefore estopped against attempting to lay a claim over the same, at this highly belated stage. There is neither any written agreement, nor was there any oral or verbal agreement between the partnership firm of the defendant and the plaintiff for registering of domain and/or logo. The logo was designed in February 2012 and the website was designed on 13.3.2012. 20 OS No.9297/2014 All its maintenance and the renewal of the website has been effected and paid for by the defendant since then. The plaintiff never contributed towards the same purely because it has no entitlement or right over the same.
In fact what transpired even then was, that only the premises of the plaintiff were used by the defendant and his wife for conducting the show in 2012. It was they who were the main organizers and promoters and did all the work and expended all the effort to ensure that the show took place and that it was a success. In fact the organization known as the Blue Cross of India (BCI) located at Chennai has been conducting dog shows for Indian dogs for the last 35 years. Their show is known as "The Wacky Mongrel Show/Welldog Show". The Great Indian Dog Show' is inspired by and modeled along with lines of those shows. The wife of defendant had approached a few others for support and collaboration to conduct a similar even to promote Indian dogs, when the plaintiff was nowhere in picture vis-à-vis any such show. The plaintiff's involvement was initially only to 21 OS No.9297/2014 the extent that being acquainted with the defendant and his wife and learning by chance of what they were seeking to do, it helped (through its trustee, Mr.Vinay Moray) in introducing the defendant and his wife to the Blue Cross of India for support and collaboration. Subsequently, the defendant and his wife decided upon this name and designed the logo for the 'The Great Indian Dog Show' in 2012. Since the show and logo is less about ownership and more about the objective, the logo and the name 'The Great Indian Dog Show' was also shared with the Blue Cross of India, as a mark of respect for Blue Cross of India, for being very forthcoming and supportive when they were first contacted for help with the show, by the defendant and his wife. Moreover, since Mr.Vinay Moray trustee of the plaintiff had introduced them to BCI, he also got involved and started supporting them for the event to be conducted and the defendant and his wife did not mistrust him because they felt that in working for a 'cause' such as this, no person would cheat any other. The Blue Cross of India, Chennai conducted the 'Great Indian Dog 22 OS No.9297/2014 Show' in 2013 and 2014 using this very name and logo. The plaintiff through Mr.Vinay Moray had also attended the Blue cross of India, Chennai event in 2013, but never laid any claim to or tried to appropriate the name at that stage. This is only because the plaintiff is well aware that they do not have and therefore cannot lay any claim to the same. The plaintiff is placing great reliance on the AWBI permission which for the year 2012 was ostensibly granted to them for the following two years i.e. the year 2013 and 2014, the AWBI permission to conduct the show was granted to the defendant and his wife. Even in the year 2012, it was not granted to them. At that stage they had projected themselves as being one with the defendant, in the manner afore stated and therefore the defendant, in good faith, allowed them to use their stationary, location etc. in connection with the show, without suspecting that anything was amiss. When the cancellation of the show as conveyed to Dr.Chinny Krishna, Chairman Emeritus, Blue Cross of India, Chennai, who is also the Vice Chairperson of the AWBI, he had expressed in 23 OS No.9297/2014 an email conversation marked to multiple people, that Sarvodaya i.e. the plaintiff hereto was laying false claim to the name. The Great Indian Dog Show and the logo.
In fact, the plaintiff has made a patently false claim of expenditure in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the show. Even in the year 2012, when the show was conducted by the defendant and his wife at the official premises of the plaintiff, the accounts of expense incurred were actually maintained by the defendant. The same are available with the defendant and clearly demonstrate that even for that show, the time, aggregate sponsorship amounts from various sponsors and donors were a sum of Rs.1,88,720/ and the cost of the event itself was Rs.91,571/.
The defendant had conducted the same show under the same name i.e. The Great Indian Dog Show' at Patel Inn.R.T.Nagar. What is pertinent, however is that despite the publicity and the promotion and the plaintiff being fully aware that the defendant was going to beg conducting the show, the plaintiff did not object in any manner whatsoever. The said 24 OS No.9297/2014 show was conducted by the defendant after massive publicity through social media, websites, facebook, twitter etc. Additionally there have consistently since then, been a number of welfare related activities under the banner 'The Great India Dog Show' on social media that the wife of the defendant, Mansi Jaysal and others volunteers calling themselves. The Great Indian Dog Show team have handled. They have used and projected and represented the name 'The Great Indian Dog Show' at multiple public events and occasions as belonging to the defendant, and have publicized it on their social media pages too. Many adoptions and rescues have been coordinated through the face book page, called the 'The Great Indian Dog Show' operated and managed by the defendant and his wife, from 2012 until December 2014. They have also conducted events to draw the attention of the public to the Indian Dog by holding a flash mob at a prominent mall to engage people. There have been numerous media reports mentioning the wife of the defendant, Mrs.Mansi Jaysal as being the chief program 25 OS No.9297/2014 coordinator of the show. She has been widely interviewed and spoken at length about the defendant's and her own activities under the said and very same banner. It is therefore inconceivable that the plaintiff did not come to know in a span of two years that the term/name. The 'Great Indian Dog Show' was being used by the defendant and his wife and their team of volunteers. The plaintiff was very well aware about the show being conducted in 2013 and in fact has made references to the same on various public forums. Its claim to the term/name, 'The Great Indian Dog Show' is therefore misconceived, misfounded and absurd. The creative for the 2013 show featured an Indian dog called Sam, who is the defendant's 14 year old pet dog. Her picture, clicked at the residence of the defendant and used for the 2013 show by the defendant and his wife, was dishonestly and without permission simply 'lifted' and misused by the plaintiff as a visual to promote its animal birth control programme. Even though the defendant and his wife protested the plaintiff did not desist from this continued use. The same is pointer, not 26 OS No.9297/2014 only to the dishonesty with which the plaintiff conducts itself, but also to the fact that the plaintiff was fully aware of the show conducted in 2013, and never laid a 'claim' to the term 'The Great Indian Dog Show' since it is fully aware that it can lay none.
The objective of the show/event is to encourage adoption of street dogs or Indian dogs and any excess amount that is raised during the show, after all expenses for organizing the event are covered, goes to one registered non- profit organization. The intention of the defendant is and has been that those working with sincerity have to be honoured and supported. Consequently, the same model was followed in the year 2013 and the NGO honored in this manner was Blue Cross of India. An amount of Rs.37,840/- was then raised and handed over to the latter. As far as the event of 2014 was concerned, which was scheduled for 6.12.2014 an amount of Rs.96,000/- was intended to be raised with the help of sponsors and personal contributions, which would have helped to cover merely the expenses of the show. Excess 27 OS No.9297/2014 funds raised if any, in the form of amounts voluntarily remitted by persons putting up stalls, out of the sales made by them of their ware, or in the form of donations, if any, on the day of the event, would have been handed over to the Voice of Stray Dogs i.e. the defendant No.1. In fact, being the chief organizers of the show, the defendant and his wife Mansi Jaysal had made all arrangements paid and provided for the expenses incurred etc. In fact, the loss that they have suffered in real terms is not easy to quantify, because considerable preparation was done, public announcements made over radio and in newspapers, celebrity guests invited and most importantly eager and committed participants notified of the happening of the event. All of the same was rendered waste by the present misconceived, dishonest action on the part of the plaintiff and several people and animals put to huge inconvenience. For instance, several dogs and pups that could have found homes had the adoptions during the course of the show been allowed to occur and thereby been off the street, did not actually find 28 OS No.9297/2014 homes. This also hampered the rescue efforts by the defendant's adoption partner, the NGO Animal Aid Alliance in effect thereby increasing the population of strays in Bangalore that remain on the street. Except contending above, the defendant No.2 has denied further plaint averments. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues have been framed:
1) Whether the plaintiff trust proves that it is the prior user of the name 'The Great Indian Dog Show' in the year 2012?
2) Whether the plaintiff trust further proves that it has hired the defendant No.2 to register the domain www.thegreatindiaanddogshow.com in its name, but the defendant No.2 registered the domain in his name?
3) Whether the plaintiff trust is entitle for the reliefs sought for?
4) What order or decree?29 OS No.9297/2014
6. The plaintiff in order to prove the case examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.4.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the records of the case.
8. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue Nos.1 & 2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per the final order,
for the following;
REASONS
9. ISSUE NOs.1 AND 2: The plaintiff filed its
affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as P.W.1, wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the plaint. In support of its case, the plaintiff has also produced Exs.P.1 to 4. Ex.P.1 is Trust deed dated 23.12.2011, which shows that the 30 OS No.9297/2014 one Vinay Moray on the one part and Dr.Akshay Prakash and Seethal Kumar Gaikwad on the other part found the plaintiff trust with the object of protection and welfare of the animals, Ex.P.2 is Times City News paper dated 16.4.2014, which shows that the news with respect to the Dog Show was published, Ex.P.3 is model of the certificate issued by plaintiff to the winners and Ex.P.4 is the Photographs downloaded from the website. The defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement, but did not cross-examine the PW1. The evidence of PW-1 is not controverted and rebutted. The filing of the written statement and not cross-examining the PW1 show that the defendants have no objection to decree the suit. So, the case of the plaintiff goes unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. Hence, its case has to be accepted in toto. So, it has to be held that the defendant is the prior user of the name 'The Great Indian Dog Show' in the year 2012 and it has hired the defendant No.2 to register the domain www.thegreatindiandogshow.com in its name but the defendant No.2 registered the domain in his 31 OS No.9297/2014 name. Accordingly, the Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
10. ISSUE NO.3:- In view of my finding on Issue No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative, the suit filed by the plaintiff has to be decreed with costs. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for. Hence, I answered this issue in the affirmative.
11. ISSUE NO.4:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
The defendants are permanently
restrained from using, publishing in the
banner, public domains on internets or any tickets or print showing the words "The Great Indian Dog Show" .32 OS No.9297/2014
The defendant No.2 is directed to transfer the domain www.thegreatindiandogshow.com in the name of plaintiff within two months from today.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer on computer, thereafter corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of January 2018).
( BASAVARAJ ) XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 Shital Kumar Gaikwad
b) Defendants' side:
NIL
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Trust deed dated 23.12.2011 33 OS No.9297/2014 Ex.P.2 Times City News paper dated 16.4.2014 Ex.P.3 Certificate issued by plaintiff Ex.P.4 10 Photographs downloaded from the website b)Defendants' side : NIL ( BASAVARAJ ) XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE 34 OS No.9297/2014