Bangalore District Court
Ashirvad Pipes Private Limited vs Kaveri Electricals And Hardware on 11 April, 2025
KABC010049712020
IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
Form No.9 SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-10)
(Civil) Title
Sheet for
Judgment Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025
in Suits
R.P. 91
PRESENT: Sri. Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv,
XVIII Additional City Civil Judge,
Bengaluru
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1345/2020
PLAINTIFF: Ashirvad Pipes Private Limited
No.4B, Attibele Industrial Area,
Anekal Taluk, Hosur Road,
Bengaluru-562 107,
Reptd., by its Authorized Signatory
Mr.K.Bala Murali Krishna
Accounts Manager.
[By Sri S.R., Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANTS: 1. Sri.Kaveri Electricals & Hardware
Thondebhavi Road Circle,
Gowribidanur Tq, Manchenahalli,
Chikkaballapur District,
Karnataka-561211.
And also at Behind Canara Bank,
New Post Office Road,
Chickaballapura-562 101.
Through its authorized representative
2. Mr. Jagadish,
Sole Proprietor,
Sri.Kaveri Electricals & Hardware,
Behind Canara Bank,
New Post Office Road,
Chickaballapura-562 101.
[D1 placed exparte]
[D2 By Sri.L.K, Advocate]
2 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
Date of institution of the suit :: 18/02/2020
Nature of the suit :: Permanent Injunction (IPR)
Date of commencement of :: 15/07/2022
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment is :: 11/04/2025
pronounced
:: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
05 01 24
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants
seeking declaration that it's trademark is well known
trademark and also for the relief of permanent injunction for
infringing and passing off plaintiff's registered Trademark
'Ashirvad' and also for the relief of destruction of invoices,
cartons etc., containing the offending mark 'Ashirvad Gold'
along with costs.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:-
Plaintiff is the partnership firm was started by LN.Poddar
in the year 1975 in the name of Ashirvad Enterprises and it
is doing the business of manufacturing of all types of pipes,
pumps and products of agricultural, sanitary, plumbing. The
partnership firm has converted into two companies i.e.,
Ashirvad Pipes Private Limited/plaintiff and Ashirvad
Enterprises Private Limited. They were assigned the trade
mark 'Ashirvad' in respect of its products including pumps.
The plaintiff was licensed the mark 'Ashirvad' to 'Ashirvad
3 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
Enterprises Private Limited'. The plaintiff and its sister
concern are selling its products all over India through its
vast channel of dealers and distributors.
The Plaintiff has got registered trademark with respect to
device mark as well as word mark 'Ashirvad' in class-7 and
17 under various trademark applications in different
languages and it's annual turnover exceeds crores together.
It has spent huge amount for advertisement and promotion
of it's trademark and it has got very good reputation in the
pipe business throughout the world nearly 45 countries.
Plaintiff has been bestowed with the prestigious National
Award by the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India.
It is further case of the plaintiff that it is the registered
proprietor of the domain name <ashirvad.com> and
<www.ashirvad.com>. The trade-mark of the plaintiff is
'ashirvad' is in use since more-than 45 years and it is well
recognized trade-mark. Hence, plaintiff is entitle for the relief
to declare its trade-mark as well-known trade-mark.
It is further case of the plaintiff that the cause of action
arose to the plaintiff to file this suit when defendant has filed
applications for trademark registration 'Ashirvad Gold' dated
29/06/2018 and 14/11/2019, further arose on 12/01/2020
when it became aware about defendant's products are
4 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
available in the market and also on 31/01/2020 when it has
received reply by defendant to it's seize and desist notice
calling upon it to stop the use of offending trademark
'Ashirvad Gold'. So, plaintiff prays to decree the suit as
stated above.
3. On issuance of suit summons, defendant No.1
remained absent, hence it has been placed as exparte.
Defendant No.2, who is the proprietor of defendant No.1 has
appeared through his counsel and filed written statement by
denying the contents of the plaint in para-wise including
cause of action. He denied that he is using the similar and
identical trademark 'Ashirvad Gold' in order to deceive the
customers of the plaintiff. He has specifically contended that
he is dealing wholesale, retail trading of PVC pipes and other
products and manufacturing of common metals and alloys
since 2020 under trademark 'Ashirvad Gold' and 'Ashirvad
Tiger' with logo. He has further contended that his logo is in
the Box shape and plaintiff's logo is in Oven shape and he has
got wide reputation and goodwill in the business since 2018
itself. Hence, there is no confusion among the customers with
respect to both products.
It is further contended that he has filed an application
for registration of his trademark, which is pending before
5 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
trademark authority. He has specifically contended that
plaintiff's rights are limited only to word-mark 'Ashirvad' and
it's oven shape logo. The plaintiff's business address is within
the Bengaluru Rural District and both defendant's have
carrying their business at Chikkballapura District and only
because selling of defendants' products within the jurisdiction
of this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and
entertain the suit. So, with these grounds he prayed to
dismiss the suit with costs.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, my predecessor in
office has framed the following issues :
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that they are
the owner of the trademark 'Ashirvad'?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants
infringing and passing off of their
trademark by using offending trademark
'Ashirvad Gold'?
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that they are
entitled for the relief of declaration as
prayed?
(4) Whether plaintiff proves that they are
entitled for the decree of permanent
injunction as sought for?
(5) Whether plaintiff proves that they are
entitled for the decree of mandatory
injunction as sought for?
(6) Whether plaintiff proves that it is entitled for
the damages as sought for?
(7) What Order or decree?
6 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
5. In order to prove the case, the authorized signatory of
the plaintiff has got examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked Exs.P1 to 66. In order to rebut the case of the
plaintiff, the defendant No.2 has got examined himself as
DW-1 and no documents are marked though him.
6. Heard both side. Both side have filed their respective
written synopsis. The counsel for plaintiff has relied upon
following citations:-
1. Com Products Vs. Shangria Food Products,
MANU/SC.0115/1959(Supreme Court) ;
2. Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs.
Navaratna Pharmeceutical Laboratories, AIR
1965 SC 980 ;
3. Proline In. Vs. Ramesh Jain, AIR 2019 Cal
285;
4. Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd., Vs.
Sabmiller India Ltd., 2013 (56) PTC 237(Bom);
5. Ruston & Hornsby Ltd., Vs. The Zamindara
Engineering Co., AIR 1970 SC 1649;
6. South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Vs. General
Mills Marketing Inc., 2015(61) PtC 231(Del);
7. Ultra Tech Cement Limited Vs. Alaknanda
Cement Pvt.Ltd., & Ors., 2011(5) BomC R5
88;
8. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Innova
Cap Tab & Anr., 2014(57) PTC 398 (Bombay
High Court);
9. M/s.Hindustan Pencils Private Limited Vs.
India Stationery Products Co, AIR 1990 Delhi
19(Delhi High Court);
10. Midas Hygiene Industries P.Ltd., and Ors.,
Vs. Sudhir Bhatia and Ors.,
MANU/SC/0186/2004 (Supreme Court).,
7 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
11. Ganesh Grains Limited and Ors., Vs. Shree
Ganesh Besan Mill and Ors.,
MANU/WB/0179/2021;
12. Greaves Cotton Limited Vs. Mohammed Rafi
and Ors., MANU/DE/2235/2011;
13. Shree Rajmoti Industries Vs. Rajmoti Foods
Products, MANU/DE/0456/2019.
7. Perused the pleadings of the parties, issues,
evidence oral and documentary, materials on record,
written synopsis filed by both side and citations relied by
plaintiff. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 :- In the Affirmative;
Issue No.2 :- In the Affirmative;
Issue No.3 :- In the Negative;
Issue No.4 :- In the Affirmative;
Issue No.5:- In the Affirmative;
Issue No.6 :- Does not survive as it is not
claimed in the plaint;
Issue No.7 :- As per final order
for the following:
8. ISSUES NO.1: The plaintiff has approached this
Court with the specif pleading that defendants are infringing
and passing off of its trademark 'ashirvad' by using offending
trademark 'ASHIRVAD GOLD'. Hence, plaintiff has to prove
that it is the registered trade mark holder of 'ashirvad' and in
order to prove the same it has relied upon the oral evidence of
8 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
PW1 and Ex.P.1 to 66. Ex.P-23 is the Certificate of trademark
standing in the name of ASHIRVAD PIPES PVT.LTD.,/plaintiff
with respect to 'ashirvad' in class-6. Ex.P24 and 25 are again
Trademark Registration certificates standing in the name of
plaintiff with respect to device mark 'ashirvad' in class-6 and
date of user since 31/12/1996. The trademark under Ex.P25
is valid up to 20/03/2030.
9. Ex.P15 to 19 are the legal user certificates of plaintiff.
Ex.P15 is the legal user certificate with respect to word mark
'ASHIRVAD V415' and it is used since 13/02/1978 and valid
up to 08/03/2024 with respect to Pipes (non-metallic)
included in class-17. Ex.P16 is the legal user certificate with
respect to device mark of Ashirvad (label) with respect to
goods like Rubber, Gutta-percha, Gum Asbestos etc.,
standing in the name of plaintiff in class-17. Ex.P17 is again
legal user certificate with respect to word-mark of 'ASHIRVAD
V415' with respect to pipes (non-metallic) etc., in class-17.
Ex.P18 and 19 are also legal user certificates with respect to
word-mark 'ASHIRVAD' in class-17 with respect to goods like
pipes included in class-17. So, considering these documents,
I hold that the plaintiff is the registered trademark holder of
device as well as word mark 'ASHIRVAD'.
9 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
10. DW1 during his cross examination specifically
admitted that he know the plaintiff's mark 'Ashirvad Pipes'
since 2010. So, he is aware that plaintiff is running its
business in the name and style 'Ashirvad Pipes'. So,
considering the trademark registration certificates as stated
above and evidence on record, I hold that plaintiff has proved
that it is the registered trademark holder of device mark as
well as word mark 'ashirvad'. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in
the Affirmative.
11. ISSUE NO.2:-Defendant No.1 remained absent
before the Court and it has been placed as exparte. Defendant
No.2, who is the proprietor of defendant No.1 has appeared
through his counsel and contested the case. The defendant
No.2 in his written statement as well as evidence, he has
admitted that he is running pipes business in the name and
style 'ASHIRVAD GOLD' and 'ASHIRVAD TIGER'. He also
admitted that he filed an application for registration of
trademark for 'ASHIRVAD GOLD' under application
No.38702571 but defendant has not produced any
documents to show that said trademark is registered in his
name.
12. D.W-1 during his cross examination by learned
counsel for plaintiff has admitted that he know the trademark
10 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
of the plaintiff 'ASHIRVAD PIPES' since 2010 and he is doing
the pipeline business by using the trademark 'ASHIRVAD
GOLD' but he denied that he is trying to encash the goodwill
of the plaintiff. So, considering the materials on record, it
appears that plaintiff has got trademark in class-17 with
respect to pipes and in class-6 with respect to tubes and
metals and defendant also doing the same business i.e., pipe
business by just suffixing the word 'Gold' to the plaintiff's
trademark 'Ashirvad'. So, if prudent man peruses both
trademarks with bare eyes they appears identical and similar
one and he will be definitely put into confusion whether both
trademarks belongs to one company.
13. Ex.P2 to 4 are the invoices of plaintiff, which
contains the trademark 'ashirvad'. Ex.P3 is the Literature,
Promotional materials of the plaintiff company, which also
contains the trademark 'ashirvad' and it is also mentioned
that 'ashirvad since 1975'. Ex.P5 is the list of dealers of
plaintiff's company, which shows there were more-than 300
dealers throughout the India.
14. Ex.P62 to 64 are the comparative photographs of
plaintiff and defendants products, which discloses that
defendants have copied the essential features of the plaintiff's
trademark 'Ashirvad' just by inserting or suffixing the word
11 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
'Gold' to the mark 'Ashirvad' and put the both words in red
circle as it is plaintiff's mark. So, I have compared both
trademarks with bare eyes, it shows that they are visually,
phonetically identical and similar one. Defendant is using the
trademark 'Ashirvad Gold' just by suffixing the word 'Gold',
which is deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff.
15. The Defendant has copied the essential features of
plaintiff's trademark knowingly that trademark of the plaintiff
is well known trademark and it has got very good reputation
and goodwill in the pipe business. Ex.P4 to 22 are the
Certificates of turn over of the plaintiff, which discloses that
its turn over is crores together. Ex.P34 are the photographs,
which shows its brand name 'ASHIRVAD' and its
advertisement and promotional expenditures spent by it.
Ex.P21 is the certificate issued by Chartered Accountant to
show that plaintiff has spent crores together on its
promotional expenditure. So, the plaintiff is the trademark
holder of well known trademark with respect to word-mark as
well as device mark 'ASHIRVAD'.
16. The evidence on record discloses that the plaintiff
and defendant are doing the similar business i.e.,PVC Pipes,
CPVC, UPVC Pipes and other similar water management
products. Ex.P38 to 52/photographs of defendant's product
12 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
and brouches discloses the said facts. If both trademarks are
compared with each other, then they are identical and similar
one. The similar mark that too in similar business may cause
confusion in the mind of the public whether both trademarks
are belongs to same person or different persons or entity.
17. On this point, the judgment relied by the plaintiff
in Ruston & Hornsby Ltd., Vs. The Zamindara
Engineering Co., is applicable to the facts of this case.
Wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"In the present case the High Court found that
there was deceptive resemblance between the word
"RUSTON" and the word "RUSTAM" and therefore
the use of the bare word "RUSTAM" constituted
infringement of the appellant's trade mark
"RUSTON". The respondent did not prefer an appeal
against the judgment of the High Court on this
point and it was, therefore, not open to him to
challenge that finding. If the respondent's trade
mark was deceptively similar to that of the
appellant the fact that the word "INDIA" was added
to the respondent's trade mark was of no
consequence and the appellant was entitled to
succeed in its action for infringement of its trade
mark".
18. In the judgment relied by the plaintiff reported in
Ganesh Grains Limited and Ors., Vs. Shree Ganesh Besan
Mill and Ors., the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held as
under:-
"20. It has been judicially recognized that, user of a
suffix or a prefix to the registered mark is of no
consequence so far as an action on account of
13 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
infringement or passing off is concerned. The
suffix or the prefix have to be of a sufficient
distinguishing feature and quality so as to distinguish
the words used from the registered mark. In the facts
of the present case, prima-facie it cannot be said that,
the user of the word "Shree" as a prefix to the
registered word "Ganesh" distinguishes the product of
the defendant's mark particularly when the parties are
into the same class of business".
19. In the judgment relied by the plaintiff reported in
Greaves Cotton Limited Vs. Mohammad Rafi & Ors., the
Hon'ble Delhi High held as under:-
"18.......Neither deletion of a part of registered
trademark nor the prefix or suffix of another word to it
would validate the use of the registered mark by an
unlicensed user, once it is shown that the part used by
the infringer is an essential part of the registered
trademark".
These citations are aptly applicable to the facts of this
case. In this case, defendant has suffixed or affixed the word
'GOLD' to the plaintiff's trade-mark 'Ashirvad' and they are
doing the similar business. So, this case falls under the
section 29(2)(c) and 29(4) of the Trademark Act.
20. As per Ex.P29/Prosecution history of application
filed by the defendant for registration of its trade-mark
discloses that the trade-mark authority has refused to register
the word-mark as well as device mark 'Ashirvad Gold' applied
by the defendant. It also discloses that defendant applied for
Review of said order but same was also rejected by trade-mark
14 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
authority. The trade-mark authority has came to conclusion
that trade-mark adopted by the defendant 'Ashirvad Gold' is
similar and identical to the trade-mark of the plaintiff and
hence, it has rejected their application. If the ordinary
prudent-man sees the trade-mark of plaintiff as well as
defendants, he would get confused himself whether both
names are of the same company. Defendants were aware about
the trade-mark of the plaintiff but they applied for similar
trade-mark only with an intention to attract the customers of
the plaintiff or to deceive the customers of the plaintiff.
21. In the judgment relied by plaintiff reported in
2013(56) PTC 237(Bom) between the Sorn Disteilleries and
Breweries Ltd., Vs. SAB Miller India Ltd., the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court has held as under:-
"In order to attract Section 29(1) several
ingredients must be established:- Firstly, there must
be in existence a registered trade mark. Secondly, there
has to be a use by a person who is not a registered
proprietor or a person using by way of a permitted use.
Thirdly, the use must be in the course of trade.
Fourthly, the use must be of a mark which is identical
with or deceptively similar to the trade mark. Fifthly,
the use must be in relation to goods and services in
respect of which the trade mark is registered. Finally,
the use must be in such a manner as to render the use
of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade
mark. All these ingredients which have been set out in
sub-section (1) of Section 29 have been fulfilled.
15 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
22. The judgment relied by the plaintiff in 1964 SCC
OnLine SC 14 between Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma
Vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court held as under:-
"In an action for infringement, the plaintiff must,
no doubt, make out that the use of the defendant's
mark is likely to deceive, but where the similarity
between the plaintiff's and the defendants mark is so
close either visually, phonetically or otherwise and the
court reaches the conclusion that there is an imitation,
no further evidence is required to establish that the
plaintiff's rights are violated. Expressed in another
way, if the essential features of the trade mark of the
plaintiff have been adopted by the defendant, the fact
that the get- up, packing and other writing or marks on
the goods or on the packets in which he offers his
goods for sale show marked differences, or indicate
clearly a trade origin different from that of the
registered proprietor of the mark would be immaterial;
whereas in the case of passing off, the defendant may
escape liability if he can show that the added matter is
sufficient to distinguish his goods from those of the
plaintiff."
In this case, the plaintiff has proved that it is the
registered trademark holder of device-mark as well as word-
mark 'Ashirvad' and also proved that the act of defendants in
using the identical mark 'Ashirvad Gold' to the identical
product i.e.,PVC-CPVC-UPVC pipes etc., is undoubtedly likely
to cause confusion to the unwary consumer of average
intelligence and imperfect recollection to believe that
defendants are connected or associated with the plaintiff.
16 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
Hence, aforesaid judgments are aptly applicable to the facts of
this case.
23. As per Section 29(3) of trade-mark Act, in case the
impugned marks and goods are identical, the Court shall
presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of
public. On this point, I rely the judgment reported in AIR
1960 SC 142 between the Corn Products Vs. Shangrila
Food Products., (which is relied by the plaintiff), wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"19.........in deciding the question of similarity
between them. Again, in deciding the question of
similarity between the two marks we have to
approach it from the point of view of a man of
average intelligence and of imperfect recollection. To
such a man the overall structural and phonetic
similarity and the similarity of the idea in the two
marks is reasonable likely to cause a confusion
between them".
So, by applying aforesaid citation and considering the
evidence on record, I hold that the plaintiff has proved its
case that defendants are infringing and passing off of the
entire trade mark of the plaintiff just by adding 'Gold' to the
mark 'Ashirvad' that too a similar business with dishonest
intention to passing off its services as those of the plaintiff.
24. Defendant No.2 has contended that he is not at all
related to defendant No.1 but as per Ex.P.29/Printout of
prosecution history of impugned application of defendant at
17 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
page No.181 discloses that the trade-mark application was
filed by the defendant No.1/Kaveri Electricals and Hardwares
and its proprietor is Jagadish i.e., defendant No.2 in class
No.6. So, the contention of the defendant No.2 that he is not
related to defendant No.1 and hence, defendant No.1 alone is
liable for prosecution of the suit cannot be accepted.
25. It is also discloses that defendant No.1 Proprietor's
Address as Kaveri Electricals and Hardwares, Behind Canara
Bank, N.P.O Road, Chikkaballapur-562 101, Karnataka and
it is also stated that use of trade-mark is proposed to be used.
So, the plaintiff is using the trade-mark 'Ashirvad' since
several years and the defendant is proposed user of
trademark 'Ashirvad Gold'. Hence, trade-mark authority has
rightly refused to register the trade-mark of defendant and if
he is aggrieved by said order, he has to challenge the same
before the concerned Appellate authority under the
Trademark Act.
26. The document at page No.239/Order of
Trademarks Registry also discloses about the rejection of
Review application filed by defendant No.2. DW1 during his
cross examination tried to contend that the trademark is
registered in his favour but Ex.P.29 discloses that the trade-
mark applied by him was refused. So, considering the
18 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
evidence on record, I hold that plaintiff is the prior user and
registered trade-mark holder of device mark as well as word-
mark 'Ashirvad' and defendants are infringed said trademark.
Hence, I answer the issue No.2 in affirmative.
27. ISSUE NO.3:- The plaintiff has sought the relief of
declaration of its mark 'Ashirvad' as well known trade mark
but as per section 11 of Trademark Act, the declaration of
well-known trade mark over particular mark is the power
vested with a Registry of Trademark. It is pertinent to note
that under Trade Mark Act, the plaintiff can seek the
registration of the trademark by proving that it is prior user of
particular trademark but it cannot claim the right of
declaration of well known mark with respect to its trade-mark
as well known trademark. But it can protect its trademark
from infringing and passing off by approaching Civil Court.
The jurisdiction of this Court to declare the trade-mark of the
plaintiff as well known trademark is expressly barred as per
Section 21 of Trademarks Act. On this point I rely upon the
decision in M/S.N.Ranga Rao & Sons vs M/S.Shree Balaji
Associates, wherein the Hon'ble Madrass High Court has
observed as under:-
"The Section 11(10)(ii) of Trademarks Act, requires the
Registrar to take into consideration the bad faith involved
either of the applicant or the opponent affecting the rights
19 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
relating to the trademark while protecting as well known
trademark. It has been repeatedly held that it is not only
a likelihood of confusion that is required to be considered,
but, also the use of a mark by any person which is
detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of an
earlier mark. It is, therefore, a bounden duty on the part
of the Registrar to protect a well known trademark from
being diluted on account of use even on dissimilar
goods/services".
So, in said citation Hon'ble Madrass High Court held
that it is the duty of Trademark authority to consider whether
trade-mark is well known trade-mark or not. Hence, by
applying above said citation, I hold that plaintiff can approach
trademark authority seeking the relief to declare its trade-
mark as well-known trademark. Hence, I answer Issue No.3
in the negative.
28. ISSUE NO.4 :- In view of my findings to issue No.1
and 2 in the affirmative, the plaintiff is entitle for the relief of
permanent injunction with respect to infringement and
passing off of its trade mark 'Ashirvad' against the defendant
from using the offending trade mark 'Ashirvad Gold'.
Hence, I answer issue No.4 in affirmative.
29. ISSUE NO.5:- The plaintiff has sought mandatory
injunction directing the defendant to surrender the entire
stock of unused offending bills containing the plaintiff's
registered trade mark, negatives, positives, transparencies,
blocks for destruction. The evidence on record discloses that
20 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
trade-mark used by the defendant is identical and similar to
the plaintiff and hence in future defendant cannot continue
its business by holding the materials containing offending
trade-mark. Hence, it is liable to surrender the entire stock of
unused offending bills containing the plaintiff's registered
trade mark, negatives, positives, transparencies, blocks for
destruction. Hence, I answer issue No.5 in the affirmative.
30. ISSUE NO.6:- The evidence on record discloses that
the plaintiff has not claimed any damages in this suit. Hence,
question of deciding this issue does arise at all. Hence, I
answer issue No.6 as does not survive for consideration.
31. ISSUE NO.7:- In view of the findings given to above
issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part with costs.
The decree of permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants or anybody on their behalf from infringing and passing off of the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'ASHIRVAD' by using the offending trade mark 'ASHIRVAD GOLD' .
Defendants are directed to surrender the entire stock of unused offending bills containing the plaintiff's registered trade mark, negatives, positives, transparencies, blocks etc., for destruction by grating the decree of mandatory injunction. The relief of declaration claimed by the plaintiff to declare its trade-mark as well-
21 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment known mark is rejected but plaintiff can approach the Registrar of Trademark authority for said relief.
Draw a decree accordingly.
*** [Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcription, the Script is corrected directly in computer, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 11th day of April, 2025.] [Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv ] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:-
PW.1 :: K.Bala Murali Krishna
2. List of documents marked on behalf of plaintiff :
Ex.P1 :: Board Resolution dt.06/11/2019;
Ex.P2 :: Four invoices;
Ex.P3 :: Literature and promotional materials of
plaintiff company;
Ex.P4 :: Certificate of turnover issued by CFO of
plaintiff Company;
Ex.P5 :: List of plaintiff's dealers and Distributors
Certificate;
Ex.P6 :: Certificate issued by CFO of plaintiff
regarding promotional expenses; Ex.P7 :: Tax Invoice dt.12.01.2020; Ex.P8 :: Office copy of the legal notice dt.22.01.2020;
Ex.P9 :: Postal receipts (2 in Nos); Ex.P10 :: Postal Acknowledgment; Ex.P11 :: Postal Track consignment; Ex.P12 :: Two Courier Track Consignment; Ex.P13 :: Reply Notice dt.31.01.2020; Ex.P.13(a) :: Postal Cover of Ex.P.13;
Ex.P14 :: Lab report;22 / 22 O.S.No.1345/2020_Judgment
Ex.P15 to 19 :: Legal use Certificates (5 in Nos); Ex.P20 :: Printout of company master data; Ex.P21 :: CA certified statement of promotional expenditure;
Ex.P22 :: CA certified statement of Turnover; Ex.P23 to 25 :: Registration Certificates (3 in Nos); Ex.P26 :: Printout of 3rd party articles; Ex.P27 :: Printout of whois extract; Ex.P28 :: Printout of plaintiff's website; Ex.P29 :: Printout of prosecution history of defendant's applicaitons;
Ex.P30 :: Printout of defendants' whois search report;
Ex.P31 :: Certificate u/sec.65B of Evidence Act; Ex.P32 & 33 :: Certified copy of order sheet and decree in O.S.No.7758/014;
Ex.P34 to 36 :: Photographs printout; Ex.P37 :: CD with respect to Ex.P.34 to 36; Ex.P38 to 52 :: Photographs of the defendant's product; Ex.P53 to 59 :: Positive photographs of plaintiff's products;
Ex.P60 to 64 :: Comparative photographs of plaintiff and defendant's products;
Ex.P65 :: CD with respect to Ex.P38 to 64; Ex.P66 :: Certificate u/sec.65B of Evidence Act with respect to Ex.P.38 to 64.
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant:-
DW.1 :: Sri.Jagadish
4. List of documents marked on behalf of defendant:
Nil XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.