Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Mr. Khandekar then pointed out from the material appended to the Affidavit in Reply it was clear that the Defendants were fully aware of the Plaintiff's well-known trade mark "Siyaram" and the associated goodwill the Plaintiff 2 [Bombay High Court] Order dt. 17th February 2025 in IA No. 1598 of 2023 in COM IP Suit No. 45 of 2023 3 [Bombay High Court] Order dt. 5th March 2025 in IA No. 190 of 2025 In COM IP Suit No. 247 of 2024 nmcd-22-13.doc had, at the time when the Defendants adopted the same. He then pointed out that the material relied upon by the Defendants itself showed that store allegedly run by the father of Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 was, in fact, under the name "Mangaldeep Showroom", with "Siyaram Fashion Stores" appearing only in brackets, as was evident from the invitation cards and documents annexed as Exhibits A, B, C, and E to the Affidavit in Reply. He further pointed out that the cash memos relied upon by the Defendants listed several other well- known textile brands, including Vimal, Gwalior Digjam, Raymonds and "Siyaram". He submitted that this material established that the Defendants were aware of the Plaintiff's mark and reputation and were selling the Plaintiff's products at the store run by the father of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., "Mangaldeep Showroom". He submitted that the Defendants had no justification whatsoever to adopt "Siyaram" as part of their trading name. Such adoption, he submitted, was plainly dishonest and undertaken solely with the intention of trading upon the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.

45.He further pointed out that the Defendants, in their Affidavit in Reply, had themselves relied upon an invoice/memo dated 2 nd July 1992, which reflected that the showroom allegedly run by the father of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 advertised itself as an "authorised dealer" of several well-known clothing brands, including Vimal, Digjam, Raymond, and Siyaram. He submitted that this material unequivocally demonstrated that the Defendants' predecessor had acknowledged the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation as early as 1992 and had consciously sought to attract customers by trading upon the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. Having relied on such material, he contended that the Defendants can no longer argue that the Plaintiff's mark lacked goodwill or reputation. He submitted that, in any event, it is well settled that where one party asserts proprietorship and goodwill in a mark, and the opposing party asserts a right to use the same mark as part of its own name or trade mark, the Court is entitled, particularly at the interlocutory stage, to presume the existence of sufficient goodwill. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in Anil Madhavdas Ahuja v. Marvel Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.33

B. The Defendants' entitlement to use the mark "Siyaram" on the basis that the father of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was allegedly running a store under the name "Siyaram Fashion Store" is prima facie misconceived and legally nmcd-22-13.doc untenable. Firstly, the material relied upon by the Defendants indicates that the name of the store was infact "Mangaldeep Showroom", with the "Siyaram Fashion Store" appearing only in brackets. Secondly, the said store appears to have stocked and sold fabrics from several well-known brands, including Vimal, Digjam, Raymond, and Siyaram, thereby clearly establishing that it was a multi-brand outlet rather than a business identified exclusively with the mark "Siyaram". Thirdly, Defendant No. 1 was incorporated only in February 2006, and there is neither any pleading nor any documentary evidence whatsoever evidencing an assignment or transfer of the trade mark "Siyaram", much less an assignment together with the associated goodwill, from the father of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to Defendant No. 1.