Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

with the same portrait of Goddess Lakshmi and Lord Srinivasa on the gunny bags of their Brands, which are phonetically, structurally confusing and deceptively similar to the Trade Mark/Copyright adopted by the Plaintiff, with malafide intention and has been deliberately designed to deceive the public/customers. Hence, the sales turnover of the Plaintiff is being gradually decreased. Therefore, the Plaintiff got issued a Legal Notice to the Defendants on 08.10.2011, that though the Com.O.S.No.12/2019 (Old O.S.No.3/2012) same was served on the Defendants, they did not complied with the demands of the Plaintiff and they have not replied to the same. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the present suit for the above mentioned reliefs.

27. The Plaintiff has further contended that by using a similar Mark by the Defendant the Sales Turnover of the Plaintiff is being gradually decreased and his reputation, goodwill as well as business prospects have been severely affected. However, during his cross-examination, he has deposed as follows:-

"It may be true that the drop in price of the paddy is also one of the ground for decrease in the Sales Turnover. It may be true if there is an increase in production of paddy in Tamilnadu or Andhra Pradesh, there may be decrease in the Sales Turnover of our Company."

28. Further, he has not produced the bills or books of accounts pertaining to the Sales Turnover of the relevant year. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to prove the decrease in the Sales Turnover as contended by him. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Trade Mark used by the Defendants is Com.O.S.No.12/2019 (Old O.S.No.3/2012) identical or deceptively similar with that of the Plaintiff's Trade Mark and the use of mark or symbol is likely to deceive or cause confusion in the minds of public. Therefore, I answer this Issue in Negative.