Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.3. In view of the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff is the sole owner and exclusive user of the trademark NAIDU HALL (including its formative marks NAIDU HALL THE FAMILY STORE and logo etc, hereafter https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  C.S (Comm. Div.) No.325 of 2020 collectively referred to as the NAIDU HALL mark) by virtue of their bona fide adoption and use of the mark for which they also own several trade mark registrations. The plaintiff use the mark NAIDU HALL as a trade mark in relation to their vast range of products and services and as a key, leading, prominent and essential portion of its corporate name, trade name and trading style in respect of various aspects of its operation and activities.

3.4. It is submitted that the said Mr. Arvind Ramaswamy is the son of Mr.G.Ramaswamy Naidu, who is one of the sons of Mr.M.Govindaswamy Naidu. The plaintiff's partner Mr.G.Venugopal is also one of the sons of Mr.M.Govindaswamy Naidu. By way of family arrangement, the legal heirs of Mr.G.Ramaswamy and Mr.G.Venugopal acquired equal right and title over the mark "Naidu Hall" and its other formative marks with demarcation in line of business activity. For more than several decades, the said two brothers mainly, Mr.Ramaswamy and Mr.Venugopal had been trading jointly and severally under the mark "Naidu Hall". Further, from the year 2005, there had been two different entities namely one belonging to Mr.Arvind Ramaswamy and one belonging to Mr.Venugopal, running without any confusion or deception in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  C.S (Comm. Div.) No.325 of 2020 the minds of the trade and public as to their origin. The defendant has stepped into the shoes of Mr.Arvind Ramaswamy by way of a business transfer agreement thereby taking over the business venture as well as acquiring right and title over the mark "Naidu Hall" and other marks. Thus, there cannot be any deception or confusion in the minds of trade and public. More so, the defendant has been using the mark Naidu Hall along with the suffix "A Moham Ventures" which clearly distinguishes the goods and services of the defendant and plaintiff herein. Mr.Sujay Kanth, is authorized by the Board of Directors and is a major shareholder of the defendant, a closely held Private Limited Company and he is the S/o.Mrs.Hamsa Moham Kanth, who is none other than elder sister of Mr.G.Ramaswamy's wife.

3.10. After the demise of Mr. Ramaswamy, difference of opinion arose between the two families, settlement talks which took place in the year 2005 and came to be recorded as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 25th January 2005 between Lrs' of Mr.Ramaswamy i.e. his https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  C.S (Comm. Div.) No.325 of 2020 wife, son Mr.Arvind Ramaswamy & daughter and plaintiff Mr.Venugopal. The said MoU rightly recognizes the equal right over the mark "NAIDU HALL". Hence, neither of the two families can claim sole monopoly right over the mark "NAIDU HALL" and at the same time both the two families are equally entitled to the mark "NAIDU HALL" and its other formative marks.