Khadi And Village Industries ... vs Girdhar Industries And Anr. on 28 December, 2023
48. Mr. Bansal's submission that the plaintiff has not been able to
prove priority of user of the KHADI mark for soaps, vis-à-vis the
defendants is, submits Ms. Majumder, fallacious. She once again
draws attention, in this context, to (i) the KVIC Act, particularly
Section 15, (ii) the recitals contained in the second 5 Year plan of
1956, and (iii) the Indian Express article of 17 February 1999. She
additionally refers to an article dated 27 September 2018 in the
magazine "OPEN" by Amita Shah, which stated that the plaintiff had
"toilet soaps, pickles, honey, spices and agarbatti etc. in its portfolio".
The Tamil Nadu Drugs and Cosmetics Authority had also licensed the
plaintiff's supporting manufacturers for manufacturing soaps in 1988,
prior to the commencement of use, by the defendants, of the impugned
GIRDHAR KHADI mark for soaps. Ms. Majumder also relies upon
the decision of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in
Padiyur Sarvodaya Sangh v. U.O.I.42, which records that the plaintiff
was manufacturing soap.