Bangalore District Court
Nandini Deluxe vs Hotel Nandini on 2 September, 2024
KABC010182372020
Form No.9
(Civil) Title
Sheet for
Judgment
in Suits PRESENT:Sri. Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv,
R.P. 91 XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2024
PLAINTIFF: M/s.Nandhini Deluxe
114/1(114/2) Lalbagh Fort Road,
Minerva Circle,
Bangalore-560 004,
Partnership Firm
Represented by its Managing
Partner Mr.N Anand S/o Late
N.Narasimhaiah, Aged about 69
years.
[By Sri.S.K, Advocate].
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANT: M/s. Hotel Nandini
4-8-694 to 702,
Ramamandir Road,
Gowliguda,
Hyderabad 500 012
Represented by its Managing
Partner Mr.N Raghavendra Rao
S/o Narayana Rao.
[By Sri.S.D., Advocate]
2 O.S.No.9374/2014
Date of institution of the suit : 03/12/2014
Nature of the suit : For Perpetual Injunction
(IPR)
Date of commencement of : 23/11/2017
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment was : 02/09/2024
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
09 09 00
****
This suit is filed by the plaintiff as against the defendant for the relief of Perpetual Injunction with respect to infringement of plaintiff's trade mark 'NANDINI DELUXE', and for damages of Rs.25,000/- per day and also for accounts etc.,
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:-
The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm has been using the trade mark ''NANDHINI' for running Andhra Style Vegetarian & Non-Vegetarian Restaurant since 1989. The plaintiff is using the trade mark 'NANDHINI' in particular artistic word, design and get- up with specially designed fonts with dots inserted in each of the alphabets and their trade mark 3 O.S.No.9374/2014 'NANDHINI' has become popular all over the India. It is running 12 branches i.e. 'Nandhini Deluxe Restaurant & Hotel' in Bengaluru. It has obtained registration of their trade mark 'NANDHINI' and 'NANDHINI DELUXE' and they got renewed the validity of trade marks from time to time. The sales turnover of the plaintiff since 1989-90 is increasing from year to year and as on the date of suit i.e., 2013- 14, it was of Rs.19,24,69,143.00/-.
It is further case of the plaintiff that it has recently learnt that the defendant has commenced hotel by name 'HOTEL NANDINI' in various places by adopting the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'NANDHINI'. The defendant has no right to use the trading style 'HOTEL NANDINI'. By using the said name, defendant is causing harm to the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff and also deceiving the customers of the plaintiff, thereby he is causing loss to the plaintiff. This act of the defendant amounts to infringement of trademark of the plaintiff. 4 O.S.No.9374/2014
The cause of action arose to the plaintiff on 20/10/2014, when it came to know about infringement of its trademark by the defendant. So, the plaintiff prayed to grant the decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant or anybody claiming under him from infringing and passing off of the plaintiff's trademark 'NANDHINI DELUXE' by using offending mark 'HOTEL NANDINI' in any manner.
Further, prayed to direct the defendants to surrender the entire stock of unused offending bills, negatives, positives, transpencies, blocks for destruction.
It is also sought rending the account of the profit and to pay the damages of Rs.25,000/- per day from the date of filing this suit to the plaintiff along with costs.
3. On issuance of suit summons, the defendant has appeared and filed written statement. In the said written statement it has admitted that it is 5 O.S.No.9374/2014 running the hotel in the name and styled as 'Hotel Nandini'. But it has denied that it is infringing the plaintiff's trade mark 'NANDHINI' and 'NANDHINI DELUXE'. It has contended that it is running hotel as 'Hotel Nandhini' since 1970 i.e., since from it's ancestors. It has got license to run the hotel in Andhra Pradesh and it got it renewed time to time. It has got 10 branches in Telengana and Andra Pradesh and two branches in Hubli.
It is also contended that it's turnover from the hotel business from 1992 was just for Rs.12 lakhs and odd and it has increased up to 9 Crore and odd in the year 2018-19. It is also contended that it is running it's vegetarian hotel in Andra Pradesh and Hubli and plaintiff is running non-vegetarian hotel at Bengaluru. So, there is no any infringement of trademark of the plaintiff by him.
It is also contended that there was the dispute between plaintiff and KMFC., with respect to use of the name 'NANDHINI' and I.P.A.B gave a finding that 6 O.S.No.9374/2014 the name 'NANDHINI' shall be used by KMFC only and not by the plaintiff. The W.P., filed by the plaintiff were dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence, plaintiff has no right over the word-mark 'NANDHINI'. It is also contended that it is the prior user of the name 'NANDINI' i.e., since 1970, plaintiff has adopted its trademark 'NANDHINI'. So, thereby the use of the word 'NANDHINI' by the plaintiff is illegal and unwarranted.
Defendant is using the word 'NANDINI' but plaintiff has added the alphabet 'H' and using the word 'NANDHINI'. So, the plaintiff itself is passing off the defendant's trademark 'NANDINI' . So, it prayed to grant the permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from using the word 'NANDINI' or offending trademark 'NANDHINI'.
It is also sought order of mandatory injunction restraining the plaintiff from selling its goods resulting in passing off of the defendant's trademark. It also sought declaration to declare it as a sole owner with 7 O.S.No.9374/2014 all the propitiatory rights over the brand name 'NANDINI'. It sought accounts and destruction of unused bills etc.,. It also sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- per day and costs of the counter-claim.
4. Plaintiff has filed re-joinder to the counter- claim of the defendant. In said re-joinder it has contended that counter-claim was not filed by the defendant at the time of filing of written statement but it was filed thereafter i.e., after lapse of 6 years. Defendant is not at all prior user of the mark 'NANDINI'. Defendant has not produced any document to show that it is the prior user of mark 'NANDINI'. So, by denying contents of the counter- claim, plaintiff prayed to dismiss the counter-claim with costs.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed the following issues and additional issues :
1. Whether plaintiff proves that it is the registered owner of trademark NANDHINI DELUXE/ NANDHINI?8 O.S.No.9374/2014
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant infringed the plaintiff's well established trade mark NANDHINI DELUXE by using offending trademark HOTEL NANDINI?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants have passed off their trade mark NANDHINI DELUXE?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent and mandatory injunctions as sought for?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the damages as sought for?
6. What order or decree?
ADDL. ISSUES FRAMED ON 21.4.2021
1. Whether the defendant proves that it is the prior user of the mark NANDINI?
2 Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff has used his trademark?
3. Whether the defendant proves that the court fee paid in insufficient?
4. Whether the defendant proves that suit is bad for mis-joinder/non-joinder of parties?
5. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is barred by limitation?
6. Whether the defendant is entitled for declaration as prayed?
9 O.S.No.9374/2014
7. Whether the defendant is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed?
8. Whether the defendant is entitled for Compensation as prayed?
6. In order to prove the case, the Managing Partners of the plaintiff have got examined themselves as PW.1 & P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to 21. In order to rebut the case of the plaintiff, the partner of the defendant has got examined himself as DW-1 and got marked Exs.D.1 to 11.
7. Heard the advocate for plaintiff as well as defendant. The learned counsels for both side have filed written synopsis.
8. The counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following citations;
1) 2007 SCC Online Mad 1646 between Kishore Jain Vs. Navarathna Khazana Jewellers;
2) 2017, SCC Online Del 11071 between R.J.Components and Shafts Vs. Deepak Industries Limited and Ors.;
3) 2001 SCC OnLine SC 1416 between Laxmikant V.Patel Vs. Chetanbhai Shah; 10 O.S.No.9374/2014
4) (2018) 9 SCC 183 between plaintiff Vs. KMFC.,
5) (1969) 2 SCC 727 between Ruston & Hornsby Ltd., Vs. Zamindara Engineering Co.,
6) 1967 SCC Online Mad 177 between The Andhra Perfumery Works Joint Family Concerns Vs. Karupakula Suranarayanaiah & Ors.;
7) M/s.Durga Fabrics, Chennimalai & Ors., Vs. Ms.SriDurga Textiles, Karuri;
8) 1964 SCC Online SC 14 between Kaviraj
Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs.
Navarathna Pharmaceutical Laboratories;
9) Chinna Krishna Chettair Vs. Sri.Ambal & Co., & Anr.,
10) Midas Hygiene Inustries P.Ltd., and ..... Vs. Sudhr Bhatia & Ors.,
11) Nokia Corporation & Ors., Vs. Movie Express & Ors.,
9. The counsel for the defendant has also relied upon the following citations:
1) S.Syed Mohideen Vs. P.Sulochana Bai.
Supreme Court of India, Laws(SC) 2015-3-
162. SCC-2016-2-683;
11 O.S.No.9374/2014
2) Shantapa Vs. Anna. High Court of Bombay, Laws(Bom)-2023-11-109. BCR-2024-2518;
3) Neon Laboratories Ltd., Vs. Medical Technologies Ltd., and Ors., Supreme Court of India (From:Gujarat), Laws(SC)-2015-10- 52, PTC-2015-64-225;
4) Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd., Vs. Anand Aggarwal, High Court of Delhi Laws(DLH)-2024-7-18m CS(Comm) 229/2023.
10. Perused the pleadings, evidence on record and citations relied by both side. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1)........... In the Affirmative; Issue No.2)........... In the Negative; Issue No.3)........... In the Negative; Issue No.4)........... In the Negative; Issue No.5)...........In the Negative Additional Issue No.1)....In the Negative Additional Issue No.2)....In the Negative Additional Issue No.3)....In the Negative Additional Issue No.4)....In the Negative Additional Issue No.5)....In the Negative Additional Issue No.6)....In the Negative Additional Issue No.7)....In the Negative Additional Issue No.8)....In the Negative 12 O.S.No.9374/2014 Issue No.6...........As per final order for the following:
11. ISSUE NO.1: Before going to decide the disputed facts, the Court has to keep in mind the following admitted facts.
The plaintiff is running the restaurant business in Bengaluru City in the name and style of 'Nandhini Deluxe Restaurant & Hotel' .
The defendant is running the restaurant in Andra Pradesh and Hubli in the name and style of Hotel Nandini.
So, keeping in mind the above said admitted facts, now I have to consider the evidence on record. Ex.P-3 is the certified copy of the Copyright Registration Certificate with respect to Artistic Work 'NANDHINI' issued in favour of Mr.N.Ananda i.e., PW1. As per column No.14 of this document, the date of application was 12/07/2001 and a copy of the work is annexed. But, the plaintiff has not produced the copy of the work, which is annexed with this 13 O.S.No.9374/2014 document. So, this document is incomplete document and not at all helpful to the plaintiff to prove its case that plaintiff is using the trademark word 'NANDHINI'.
12. So, as per Ex.P.3, the copyright is given to the plaintiff with respect to Artistic work. But, as per Ex.P.4, the trademark is registered with respect to word NANDHINI. As per Ex.P.4, it is stated that the word 'NANDHINI' is used since 31/12/1989 but plaintiff has not produced any documents to prove the same.
13. PW2 during his cross examination has admitted that he do not know as to whether they have produced the documents to show that they have used the trademark 'NANDHINI' since 1989. He also admitted that he has produced the documents to show that they are using the trademark since 2004. So, the case of the plaintiff that it is using the trademark 'NANDHINI' since 1989 14 O.S.No.9374/2014 cannot be accepted but it is using the said trademark since 2004.
14. Ex.P.5 is the Trademark Registration Certificate with respect to device-mark 'NANDHINI DELUXE DEV:LAMP' and date of registration was shown as 13/05/2004 and valid up to 13/05/2014. Ex.P.5(a) is the its legal use certificate. So, as per this document peculiar DEVICE is registered as trade mark of the plaintiff. So, this case is with respect to said DEVICE including with respect to Word-Mark 'NANDHINI'. So, considering both these documents, I hold that the plaintiff has proved that it is the trade mark holder of 'NANDHINI' and 'NANDHINI DELUXE DEV: LAMP'. Hence, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
15. ISSUE NO.2 & 3 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1 & 2 :- All these issues are interlinked with each other, they have been taken up together to avoid repetition and to appreciate the evidence on 15 O.S.No.9374/2014 record, they are taken up together for common discussion.
The burden of proving issue No.2 and 3 is upon the plaintiff and additional issue No.1 and 2 is upon the defendant. The plaintiff has to prove that the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's trade mark 'NANDHINI' by using offending trade mark 'Hotel Nandini'. Ex.P-6 is the Menu-Card of the plaintiff's Hotel and it also contains its logo. Ex.P.9 is the package of plaintiff containing the trademark 'nandhini Deluxe' and tagline-The real spice of life with red chilly. Ex.P.1 and Ex.P-7 are the bills issued by the defendant's hotel 'Hotel Nandini'. Ex.P.2 and 3 are the visiting cards of 'Hotel Nandini'. Ex.P.10 and 11 are the photographs of the hotel of defendant 'Nandini Lodge and Hotel Nandini'. Ex.P.12 is it's CD.
16. These are the documents relied by the plaintiff to show that defendant is using offending trademark 'Nandini'. If Ex.P.2, Ex.P3, Ex.P.10 and 16 O.S.No.9374/2014 Ex.P.11 and device mark of the plaintiff is compared with the name of the hotel of the defendant 'Hotel Nandini', then they are not at all identical and similar one.
17. In the trade mark of the plaintiff DEV:LAMP' is prefixed to the word 'NANDHINI DELUXE. There is no such 'LAMP' used by the defendant. In each alphabet of word nandhini, the plaintiff has put dots but no such dots are appearing in the bills of the defendant. The word 'DELUXE' is used by plaintiff but such word is not at all used by the defendant.
18. Looking to the documents produced by the defendant as per Ex.D1 to D11 it discloses that it is running hotel business in the name and styled as 'M/s. Hotel Nandini'. He has produced the documents from 31.03.1992 but not from the year 1970 as claimed by him. If the prudent-man sees both trade names then there is no any confusion at all. If the ordinary prudent-man sees the name boards of 17 O.S.No.9374/2014 plaintiff as well as defendant, he would not get confused himself whether both names are of the same Hotel. After comparing the device mark of the plaintiff with the name of hotel of the defendant, I hold that the defendant is not using the deceptive, identical or similar trade mark or trade name of the plaintiff.
19. The learned advocate for plaintiff has argued that defendant has used the word 'Nandini' and hence, he has violated the trade mark or infringing the trade mark of the plaintiff.
20. Admittedly, the hotel of the defendant is situated at Andra Pradesh/Telengana and Hubli and plaintiff is running its business at Bengaluru. The plaintiff is running non-vegetarian hotel and defendant is running vegetarian hotel. So, the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is using deceptively similar trademark cannot be accepted. The case of the defendant that he is the prior user of trademark 'NANDINI' since 1970 is also not proved by it and the same cannot be accepted.
18 O.S.No.9374/2014
21. As per Ex.P.16 the Assignment Deed on para No.6, the status of trademark No.817305 with respect to word 'NANDHINI' is registered and valid up to 01/09/2028 but TMR status report read as removed and as per column No.8 i.e., on next page, the trademark with respect to word 'NANDINI' under trademark No.1284398 i.e., Ex.P.4 is valid up to 13/05/2024 and application is filed seeking change in class from 42 to 43. The device mark of the plaintiff 'Nandhini Deluxe Dev:Lamp' is also valid up to 13/05/2024 and application is filed for change of class.
22. So, considering the documents produced by the plaintiff and documents produced by the defendant as well as oral evidence, I hold that the trademark used by the plaintiff and defendant are not similar or identical one. The case of the plaintiff that defendant is using deceptive trademark cannot be accepted. Though the plaintiff is trademark holder of 19 O.S.No.9374/2014 'Nandhini', the plaintiff cannot contend that nobody should use this generic name 'Nandhini'.
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in (2018) 9 SCC 183 with respect to the present plaintiff's case against the KMFC was pleased to observe as under;
"Though there is a phonetic similarity insofar as the words NANDHINI/NANDINI are concerned, the trade mark with logo adopted by the two parties are altogether different. The manner in which the appellant has written NANDHINI as its mark is totally different from the style adopted by the respondent for its mark 'NANDINI'. Further, the appellant has used and added the word 'Deluxe' and, thus, its mark is 'NANDHINI DELUXE'. It is followed by the words 'the real spice of life'. There is device of lamp with the word 'NANDHINI'. In contrast, the respondent has used only one word, namely, NANDINI which is not prefixed or suffixed by any word. In its mark 'Cow' as a logo is used beneath which the word NANDINI is written, it is encircled by egg shape circle. A bare perusal of the two marks would show that there is hardly any similarity of the appellant's mark with that of the respondent when these marks are seen in totality".
The word 'NANDHINI' represents the name of Goddess and a cow. This word is used by people from 20 O.S.No.9374/2014 all walks of life and it is also used in Puranas and Hindhu Mythological stories. Hence, the plaintiff cannot claims monopoly of the word 'NANDHINI'.
24. A bare perusal of the name boards of the plaintiff as well as defendant would show that there is hardly any similarity of the plaintiffs mark with that of the defendant when these marks are seen in totality. The plaintiff is claiming the exclusive right over the word 'nandhini' but it is generic word. Hence, plaintiff cannot claim its/his exclusive right over this name. Merely because defendant has used the word 'Nandini' it cannot be said that there is infringement of plaintiff's right. The Font size, style of writing the names etc., are not similar. Hence, the case of the plaintiff that there is an infringement of its trade mark by the defendant cannot be accepted.
25. The citation relied by the plaintiff reported in 2007 SCC Online Mad 1646 between Kishore Jain Vs. Navarathna Khazana Jewellers., is perused by me. But said citation is not at all 21 O.S.No.9374/2014 applicable to the facts of this case because in this case, the plaintiff has not proved that there is a infringement of the trademark by the defendant.
26. The next citation reported in 2001 SCC OnLine SC 1416 between Laxmikant V.Patel Vs. Chetanbhai Shah., is also not applicable to the facts of this case because in said case the plaintiff has proved prima-facie case as well as the infringement and passing off of its trademark but in this case, the plaintiff has not proved the same.
27. The citation reported in (1969) 2 SCC 727 between Ruston & Hornsby Ltd., Vs. Zamindara Engineering Co., is on the point of suffix but in this case the word used by defendant 'NANDINI' is the generic word. Hence, question of suffixing and prefixing will not arise.
28. The judgment of Hon'ble Madras Court relied by the plaintiff between The Andhra Perfumery Works Joint Family Concerns Vs. 22 O.S.No.9374/2014 Karupakula Suranarayanaiah & Ors., is not applicable to this case because in said case device-mark was invented by the plaintiff. But in this case there is no such invention with respect to word 'NANDHINI'.
29. The next citations of M/s. Durga Fabrics, Chennimalai and Ors., Vs. M/s. Sri. Durga Textiles, Karuri and Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs. Navarathna Pharmaceutical Laboratories., are not at all applicable to the facts of this case because the facts and circumstances of said case are all together are different.
30. The citations relied by the plaintiff reported in Chinna Krishna Chettair Vs. Sri.Ambal & Co., & Anr.; Midas Hygiene Inustries P.Ltd., and ..... Vs. Sudhr Bhatia & Ors., and Nokia Corporation & Ors., Vs. Movie Express & Ors., are not at all applicable to the facts of this case.
In this case, the plaintiff is claiming trademark on the word 'NANDHINI' but it is running the hotel in 23 O.S.No.9374/2014 the name and style of 'nandihini Deluxe' with specific logo and device mark. But there is no any similarity between the word used by defendant as 'NANDINI' with logo of the plaintiff. With respect to hotel business, the plaintiff has got trademark i.e., device-mark with DEV:LAMP with tagline-The real spice of life . The defendant has not at all used the device-mark, tagline etc.
31. So, infringement of trademark with respect to application No.1284399 cannot be attracted and with respect to another trademark No.1284398 i.e., word-mark, the plaintiff is using word 'nandhini' in small letters having dots in it but defendant is using the word-'NANDINI' without 'H'. The plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that it is running its hotel only by using the registered trademark with respect to capital word 'NANDHINI' without any logo etc. Hence, plaintiff is not entitle for any relief of infringement of trademark or passing off with respect to its registered trademark 'NANDHINI'. 24 O.S.No.9374/2014
32. The plaintiff has claimed the judgment and decree of infringement and passing off of its trademark 'Nandhini Deluxe'. So, in order to claim the relief with respect to this trademark, the plaintiff has to prove that there is a similar trademark used by the defendant but plaintiff has not proved it. The plaintiff is no registered word mark- 'Nandhini Deluxe' but it has got device trademark 'nandhini Deluxe' with logo and small dots in words 'nandhini' etc.,.
33. In order to grant the relief of injunction, the Court should satisfy that the defendant has used the trade mark, which is deceptively similar. The question of deceptive similarity is a question of fact. So, the Court has to compare both the trade marks or trade names and then shall come to the conclusion.
34. In this case if both names of plaintiff hotel as well as defendant hotel are compared with bare eyes there is no any similarity in these names. When the two marks are not identical, the plaintiff has to 25 O.S.No.9374/2014 establish that the trade mark used by the defendant so nearly resembles the plaintiff's registered trade mark as is likely to deceive or cause confusion and in relation to goods in respect of which it is registered. But, in this case if both marks are compared, there is no chance of likely to deceive the customers. Hence, plaintiff is not entitle for any relief in this suit.
35. The defendant has produced documents i.e., Ex.D1 to 11 with respect to income tax returns to show that it is running hotel business, restaurant etc., by using the word 'NANDINI'. It is using the said name since 1992 but all along, it has not claimed the right of passing off over the said name but the moment the suit is filed against it, it sought the counter-claim. The plaintiff is not at all using the word 'NANDINI' or NANDHINI' alone. But it is using the word 'nandhini Deluxe' with a specific logo etc.,. Hence, the case of the defendant that plaintiff is causing loss to it and loss of its reputation and 26 O.S.No.9374/2014 plaintiff is passing off its trademark 'NANDINI' etc., cannot be accepted.
36. In order to claim the relief of passing off of his trademark, the defendant has to prove that he has got good reputation or goodwill and because of use of similar trade mark by the plaintiff, he has suffered loss. But, defendant has not proved the same. The citations relied by the defendant are perused by me but with due respect I hold that the said citations are not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, I hold that defendant is not entitle for the relief claimed in the counter claim.
37. So, considering the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff is running 'nandhini Deluxe' hotel in Bengaluru and it is using the device- mark 'nandhini Deluxe' with Dev:Lamp and also with tagline-The real spice of life. This trademark is not at all infringed by the defendant by running the hotel or restaurant in the name of NANDINI. Hence, I hold that plaintiff as well 27 O.S.No.9374/2014 defendant are not entitle for any relief in this suit. Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 & 3 and Additional Issue No.1 and 2 in the negative.
38. ADDITIONAL ISSUES NO.3 TO 5:- All these issues are interlinked with each other, they have been taken up together to avoid repetition and to appreciate the evidence on record, they are taken up together for common discussion.
Defendant has just raised formal defence of Court fee, non-joinder of necessary parties and suit is barred by law of Limitation. But defendant has not contended as to how the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is not correct and who are the necessary parties to the suit and how the suit is barred by law of Limitation. Hence, I hold that these issues are not proved by the defendant and answer these issues in the negative.
39. ISSUE NO.4, 5 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.6 TO 8:- The plaintiff has not proved its case on infringement and passing off of its trademark. 28 O.S.No.9374/2014 Defendant has also not proved that plaintiff has used his trademark. Hence, the plaintiff as well as defendant are not entitle for any relief in this suit. Hence, suit as well as counter-claim are required to be dismissed. Hence, I answer these issues in the negative.
40. ISSUE NO.6:- In view of the findings given to above issues and additional issues, I proceed to pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
The counter-claim of the
defendant is also dismissed with
costs.
***
[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 2nd day of September, 2024.] [Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv ] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.29 O.S.No.9374/2014
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
a) The Plaintiff's side:
PW.1 :: N.Ananda PW.2 :: Rupesh Ananda
b) The Defendant's side:
DW1 :: N.Raghavendra Rao
2. List of documents marked on behalf of:
a) The Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Original hand bill of defendant hotel; Ex.P.2 Visiting card of defendant hotel; Ex.P.3 Certified copy of Trademark Certificate;
Ex.P.4 & P.5 Certified copy trademark renewal
certificates (2 in no.s)
Ex.P.4(a) & Legal use letters;
P.5(a)
Ex.P.6 Updated version of plaintiff's menu
card;
Ex.P.7 Updated version of Defendant's bill;
Ex.P.8 Updated version of Defendant's
visiting card;
Ex.P.9 Package/cover of the plaintiff;
Ex.P.10 & 11 Photographs;
Ex.P.12 CD;
Ex.P.13 Certificate issued by the chartered
accountants dated 22.02.2022;
Ex.P14 Death certificate
Ex.P15 Certified copy of the deed of
30 O.S.No.9374/2014
partnership reconstitution
Ex.P16 to P18 Certified copy of the Deed of
assignment of trademarks
Ex.P19 Certified copy of the Form TMP
seeking assignment
Ex.P20 Certified copy of the Form 'C'
certificate
Ex.P21 Certified copy of the Form 'D'
b) Defendant's side:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of the Assessment
order;
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of the Notice of demand;
Ex.D.3 Certified copy of the Receipt cum
challan ;
Ex.D.4 Certified copy of the Assessment
order;
Ex.D.5 Certified copy of the Receipt cum
challan ;
Ex.D.6 Certified copy of the Intimation from
IT Department ;
Ex.D.7 Certified copy of the Receipt cum
challan ;
Ex.D.8 Certified copy of the 73 IT returns
acknowledgments ;
Ex.D.9 Certified copies of the 6 HP Gas bills;
Ex.D.10 Certified copy of the CA certified turn
over ;
Ex.D.11 Certified copy of certificate U/s 65-B
of Indian Evidence Act filed in OS No. 9370/2014.
XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.