Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as follows:-

It is averred in the plaint that, plaintiff is a firm engaged in manufacturing of synthetic food colour preparations, liquid colour preparations, synthetic flavours, caramel, cake Gel, custard powder, baking powder etc and it is having its office in the address mentioned in the cause title of the plaint. Plaintiff has been manufacturing and selling the said products solely as well as through its authorised dealers and distributors since from 1994 under trade name of DIAMOND. The main area of sales is throughout South India and said products have gained lot of goodwill and commercial reputation domestically with over more than 300 satisfied dealers spread over the South India and it has earned trust of users across the state. Plaintiff has earned good name and reputation for its quality products. It has obtained certificate of Registration of trademark under clause 29 of Trade Marks Act 1999 in the name of DIAMOND issued by Trade Mark Registry vide its order dated 18.06.2005 which has been renewed from time to time which is valid till the year 2022. It is also registered with Bureau of Indian Standard Authority, Goods and Service Tax Authority and Food Safety and Standard Authority of India. Plaintiff has exclusive right to prevent others from committing any act infringement of name DIAMOND by using identical or deceptively similar trading style/ name of plaintiff. It has been advertising its business and trademark in various states relating to industry from time to time. It recently came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that, a firm by name M/s Sri.Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories having its office at plot No.8 Mayur Nagar Andrahalli Main Road Peenya 2 nd Stage Bangalore carrying on business of manufacturing and sales of products identical to the products sold by the plaintiff and products of the said Firm are packaged and sold by adopting deceptively similar and identical style and package including wordings and designs of the plaintiff. The said firm was registered in the name of one Asha D/o Chikkanna who is non other than husband of defendant No. 2. Sri. Chikkanna was regular supplier of carton boxes to the plaintiff, but he was well acquainted with the products of the plaintiff firm and many of customers of plaintiff along with few of the employees of the plaintiff firm have copied the products of the plaintiff firm and started his own business in the name of Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories with not only similar products, but also similar packaging to that of plaintiff. Plaintiff contacted the said firm and requested not to use the trademark for their products which has been straight away rejected by the defendants. The plaintiff filed complaint to the police who have registered case against the defendants on 22.05.2020 and raid was conducted on the premises of M/s Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories on the same day and seized all products and packages which were exact replica of products and packages used by the plaintiff.

7. My findings on the above issue are as under:

Issue No.1: In the Affirmative; Issue No.2: In the Negative;

Issue No.3: In the Affirmative; Issue No.4: In the Negative;

Issue No.5: In the Affirmative; Issue No.6: In the Affirmative; Issue No.7 :As per the final order, for the following:

REASONS

8. ISSUE NO.1:- It is sum and substance of pleadings and evidence of plaintiff, it is firm engaged in manufacturing synthetic food colour preparations, liquid colours preparations, synthetic flavours, caramel, cake gel, custard powder, baking powder etc in the name and style of DIAMOND having its registered office and selling its products through its authorized dealers and distributors since the year 1994 and firm has been selling said products under brand throughout South India and earned good name and reputation domestically over more than 300 satisfied dealer spread over south India and has earned trust of users across the state. According to the evidence of PW-1, plaintiff firm has obtained Certificate of Registration of Trade Mark under clause 29 of Trade Marks Act in the name of DIAMOND issued by Trade Mark Registry vide order dated 18.06.2005 which has been renewed from time to time since the date of registration which is valid till 2022. He has further stated that, plaintiff firm is a registered firm under said trade name with Bureau of Indian Standards Authority, Goods Service Tax Authority, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. According to his evidence, defendants have started M/s Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories at Plot No.8, Mayur Nagar Andrahalli Main Road, Peenya 2nd Stage, Bangalore carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of products identical to the products of plaintiff and its products are packaged and sold by adopting deceptively similar and identical style and package including wordings and designs and identical style and package to that of plaintiff firm. One Chikkanna is husband of defendant No.2 was regular supplier of carton boxes to the plaintiff firm and he was well acquainted with products of plaintiff firm and many of customers of plaintiff and he along with few employees of plaintiff firm copied products of plaintiff and started own business in the said name by producing similar products for which he has filed complaint to the jurisdictional police who have registered FIR and conducted raid on 22.05.2020 and inspite of same, defendants have continued the production with same name and brand.

16. On appreciating the documents produced by the defendants, the defendant No.1 Smt. Asha has taken certificate from Registrar of Trademarks in the name of New Diamond as per Ex.D1 bearing Trade Mark No.4073482 dated 31-01-2019. She has taken certificate under FSS Act from Government of Karnataka and she has also named the company as Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories. Ex.D3 is the GST Registration Certificate bearing Reg.No. 29BRKPC1323EIZ7 and trade name is mentioned as Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories. She has also produced Form GSTR 3B Forms. she has produced Ex.D4 which is the certificate taken in the name of Sapthagiri Packers and Ex.D5 is the certificate of Sapthagiri Packers issued by Directors of Industries and Commerce. Ex.D6 is the GST Registration certificate bearing Reg.No.29ACHPC9223CIZV in the name of Dodda Anjanappa Chikkahanumaiah which is the proprietorship concern. Ex.D7 is the VAT certificate in the name of G.Chikkahanumaiah. It is clear from Ex.D1 to D3 that the name of their firm is shown as Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories. As per Ex.P2 Trademark certificate, the plaintiff firm is registered in the name of Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories with logo of diamond. Ex.P4 also shows that the firm of the plaintiff is registered in the name of Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories and it is producing the Synthetic Food Colour preparations, liquid colour preparations, Synthetic flavours, Caramel, Cake Gel, custard power, Baking powder, flavours and essences and GST is also registered in the same name. But the defendants have also registered the name of their firm in the same name and there is no change in the name which is clear from Ex.D2 and Ex.D3. Even the defendants themselves have admitted in their chief affidavit that they have undertaken the preparation of colouring food and beverages and only trade mark used by them is in the name and Style of New Diamond. In the cross-examination of DW.1, she has admitted that, she started business in the year 2004 and in the year 2020, Food safety certificate was obtained which goes to show that she has not obtained Food safety certificate in the year 2020, even though she started business in the year 2004. In Section 2(g) of Trademark Act "collective mark" has been defined as a trademark that distinguishes the goods or services of members of an association of persons from those of others. The association must not be a partnership as defined by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Essentially, it's a mark used by a group or organization to show that its members are associated with that group. Section 2(h) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (India) defines "deceptively similar" in relation to trademarks. A mark is considered deceptively similar to another if it so closely resembles the other mark that it is likely to cause confusion or deceive the public.

21. In the said case, the registered trade mark RUSTON was used and the respondent pleaded that RUSTAM was infringement of RUSTON and stated that the words RUSTAM INDIA were used. The trial court dismissed the suit by holding that there was no visual, phonetic similarity between the RUSTAM and RUSTON. In this case, the company of the plaintiff is registered in the name of M/s. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories with Diamond Brand.

22. Plaintiff has produced the certificate issued by Registrar of Trademark and said company is registered as Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories by using the Diamond as its logo. As per Ex.P4 under FSS Act, 2006 Government of Karnataka has issued license for the purpose of Synthetic Food Colour preparations, liquid colour preparations, Synthetic flavours, Caramel, Cake Gel, custard power, Baking powder, flavours and essences. But the defendants also got registered GST certificate under the same name as Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories. They would have chosen some other name than the name of the plaintiff's firm.