[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories vs Saptagiri Packers on 11 July, 2025
KABC010172082020
Presented on : 05-10-2020
Registered on : 05-10-2020
Govt. of Karnataka TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI,
B.A. LL.B.(Spl)
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.No.4714/2020
PLAINTIFF/S : M/s. Venkateshwara Fine Chem
Laboratories
A Partnership firm having its office
at No. 113, 1st Main, Ashok Nagar,
Behind Widia, 14th K.M. Tumkur
Road, Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru-73.
Hereinafter Represented By its
Partner, Mr.M.S.Mahadevappa.
[By Sri. H.S, Advocate]
2 OS.No.4714/ 2020
/Vs/
DEFENDANT/S 1 M/s. Saptagiri Packers
A Proprietary concern having its
office at Plot No.8, Mayur Nagar,
Andrahalli Main Road, Peenya 2nd
Stage, Bangalore-560091.
Represented by its Proprietor.
2 Smt. Manjula B
W/o. Chikkanna
Aged major, at Plot No-8,
Mayur Nagar, Andrahalli Main Road
Peenya 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560091.
(By Sri. NV Advocate
For D1, D2)
Date of Institution of the suit : 27-07-2020
Nature of the Suit : Injunction
Date of commencement of : 27.06.2023
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 11.07.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
4 11 14
(GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI)
VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
3 OS.No.4714/ 2020
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed this suit against the
defendants seeking the relief of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants, their
agents, servants or any persons claiming under
them in any manner either directly or indirectly
from passing off its goods/ products in the name
of NEW DIAMOND by using marketing materials,
products and boxes of plaintiff and to direct the
defendants to render true and correct account of
all the profits earned by them by using impugned
marketing materials/ goods of plaintiff and to pay
such amount to the plaintiff which may be found
due on such account being taken from the date of
the suit till the date of actual realization.
4 OS.No.4714/ 2020
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
5 OS.No.4714/ 2020and 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
6 OS.No.4714/ 2020the 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
7 OS.No.4714/ 2020along 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.
8 OS.No.4714/ 2020
But inspite of said raid, defendants threatened to
continue the production of goods in the said
name. Plaintiff without having any option filed the
suit bearing O.S.No.2570/2020 on the file of City
Civil Judge Bangalore (CCH-10) seeking the relief
of permanent injunction against the defendant, its
servants and men and agents and court has
granted temporary injunction. The said suit is still
pending for consideration and an order of
temporary injunction is in operation. The said
case came up for hearing on 15.05.2020. The
defendant No.2 who is none other than the wife of
Chikkanna and defendant No.3 who is mother of
Asha came to know about order and defendant
threatened that they would start the same
business in the same brand name of NEW
9 OS.No.4714/ 2020
DIAMOND under the same banner Sapthagiri
Packers and court order would not come in their
way. The address of both defendant No.1 and
M/s Sri Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories
against whom injunction order in
O.S.No.2570/2020 is operating is one and same.
The defendant No.1 concealing all the above facts
and also got the trade mark registered in the
name and style of NEW DIAMOND and got
registered GST in the month of July 2017. The
defendant No.1 who supplied cotton boxes to the
plaintiff in order to overcome the business of the
plaintiff or overcome the injunction order and
spoil the business of the plaintiff now come up
with a defence that, it has registered the said firm
in the name of NEW DIAMOND. The business of
10 OS.No.4714/ 2020
firm under the title of Saptagiri Packers is only
supply of package materials. Plaintiff has also
filed necessary application seeking rectification of
jurisdictional trademark registry and said
proceedings are pending for consideration before
Registry. Due to registration of trademark of
defendant in deceptively similar fashion, it has
lead to dilution of trade mark of plaintiff thereby
affecting registered trademark and also affecting
goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff existing in
the market. The defendants have adopted the logo
which is deceptively similar that of the plaintiff’s
logo and prefixed extra word New to the logo of
plaintiff DIAMOND which clearly shows malice of
defendants in destroying reputation and good
11 OS.No.4714/ 2020
name of plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff is constrained to
file this suit against defendants.
3. Defendants have filed written statement and
contented that, suit of the plaintiff is not
maintainable either in law or on fact and liable to
be dismissed. It is contended that, defendant is
proprietorship firm which came into existence for
preparation for colouring food and beverages and
said firm is having its own customers all over
India running successfully its business. The
defendant firm has got necessary certificates and
licenses from the concerned authority and it is
legally running its firm. The plaintiff could not be
able to tolerate the growth of the defendants and
filed false suit against the defendants alleging
that, the defendants had copied the trademark of
12 OS.No.4714/ 2020
the plaintiff firm and also copied the logo of the
plaintiff and manufacturing goods which are being
manufactured by plaintiff. The defendants have
not at all copied any Trade Mark or logo of
plaintiff. The defendant firm is having its own
trademark and logo having its own customers all
over India. The goods and services of the
defendant firm are entirely different from the
plaintiff. There are number of companies existing
in India to manufacture same goods and services
and defendant firm is also doing the same under
its own trademark and logo. The defendant firm is
manufacturing its own products and not copying
from any company or firm. If at all defendant
copied the trade mark and logo of plaintiff, the
concerned authorities could not have issued the
13 OS.No.4714/ 2020
license to defendant firm. Without knowing the
said fact, plaintiff has filed false suit against the
defendants. Plaintiff has not approached the
Court with clean hands and filed false suit
bearing O.S.No.2570/2020 by suppressing
material facts and this is another round of
litigation filed by the plaintiff who is in the habit
of filing false cases against the persons who are
growing up better than plaintiff. Plaintiff has not
approached the court with clean hands and suit is
barred by limitation. Plaintiff has not paid proper
Court fee and suit is bad for misjoinder and non
joinder of parties and there is no cause of action.
Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with
costs.
14 OS.No.4714/ 2020
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, my
predecessor in office has framed following:
I SSU ES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendants have committed an act of
“Passing Off” by selling the same
products (sold by the plaintiff) under the
logo “NEW DIAMOND” which resembles
the registered trade mark “DIAMOND”
(which belongs to the plaintiff) misleading
the general public by make believing that
the products of the defendants sold under
the logo “NEW DIAMOND” are the
products of the plaintiff ?
2) Whether the defendants prove that the
suit is time barred ?
3) Whether the defendants prove that the
Court fee paid by the plaintiff is
insufficient ?
4) Whether the defendants prove that the
suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties ?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
account of profits made by the
defendants by committing an act of
passing off as alleged by the plaintiff ?
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any of
the relief claimed in the plaint ?
7) What decree or order ?
15 OS.No.4714/ 2020
5. Plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got
marked ExP-1 to P-38 and closed the evidence.
Defendant No.2 herself examined as DW-1 and got
marked ExD-1 to D8 and closed the evidence.
6. Learned Counsels for both parties have filed
their written arguments. I have gone through
pleadings, evidence and written arguments placed
on record.
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:
16 OS.No.4714/ 2020
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
17 OS.No.4714/ 2020
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
18 OS.No.4714/ 2020
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.
9. On appreciating the cross examination of
PW-1, he has admitted that, if there is identical trade
mark registered in the same name and logo, another
trade mark certificate will not be issued. The concerned
cross examination portion is as under:
It is true that if there is identical trade mark is
registered in same name and logo, another trade mark
certificate will not be issued.
He has further admitted in his cross examination
that, defendant is doing business in the name and style
of Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories, but he
has voluntarily stated that, the defendants are doing
business in the name of NEW DIAMOND. The concerned
cross examination portion is as under:
19 OS.No.4714/ 2020
It is true defendant is doing business in the name
and style of Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories.
Witness volunteers they are doing business in the name
of New Diamond.
10. In further cross-examination of PW.1, he has
admitted that, the defendants by applying obtained
the Trade Mark and logo as New Diamond and after
obtaining the permission from the concerned
authorities, they are manufacturing food colours.
The concerned cross-examination portion is as
under:-
It is true defendants by
applying have obtained a
trademark on logo as New
Diamond. It is true defendants
by obtaining permission from
concern authorities
manufacturing the food colours.
20 OS.No.4714/ 2020
He has also admitted that, he has filed suit
bearing No.2570/2020 for damages against the
defendants which is pending on the file of CCH-10.
11. According to his version, the defendants are
manufacturing their own products under the
trademark and logo of New Diamond and doing
business in the market which is illegal and he has
given complaint to the Trade Mark authority for illegal
use of his trademark and he has not produced the
complaint copy to show that, he has filed the
complaint to the Trademark Authority.
12. On appreciating the evidence of DW.1, she has
denied the contents of plaint in her chief examination
affidavit and stated that, their Trademark has been
registered as ‘New Diamond’ under Section 23(2), Rule
56 (1) of Trademark Act, 1999. By registering of
trademark certificate of Registration of Trade Mark
21 OS.No.4714/ 2020
and they have also taken the food safety certificate
from the Government of Karnataka for manufacturing
of food items and same is valid from 12-07-2021 to
11-07-2026 and they are also maintaining and
manufacturing standard food items. Even she has
also stated that, they have also got GST Registration
certificate from Government of India in the name of
Sri. Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories and
running the business by paying GST to Government of
India and also obtained VAT certificate from the
concerned authority and their products are very good
products and many of the customers are placing
orders to supply their products and they are also
issuing tax invoices. Her evidence shows that, M/s.
Sapthagiri Packers is the old company which came
into existence in the year 2004 vide document
Registration No.783/2004-05 which is engaged in the
manufacture of cotton boxes and supplying the same
22 OS.No.4714/ 2020
to the customers since more than 20 years which has
its own reputation in the market and Trademark. The
Government of Karnataka has issued certificate to the
defendants firm and have taken license from the
concerned authorities and necessary certificates and
they have not copied any trademark of the plaintiff
and if they copied the trademark of plaintiff, the
concerned authority would not have issued trademark
certificate and other relevant documents to the
defendants.
13. The defendants have produced certified copy of
Trademark certificate, certified copy of Registration
certificate under FSSA, certified copy of GST
registration certificate, certificate dated 31-07-2004
issued by the Government of Karnataka to establish
industries, certificate issued by the Directorate of
Industries and Commerce dated 12-01-2007, GST
23 OS.No.4714/ 2020
certificate dated 12-07-2023, VAT Certificate dated
30-10-2008 and 65-B Certificate which are marked as
Ex.D1 to 8.
14. In the cross-examination of DW.1, she has
stated, in the year 2004, she started business and in
the year 2020, Food safety certificate was obtained.
She does not know the date of applying for
registration of Trademark certificate and in which
year, trademark certificate was issued and under
which clause, it was issued. Even she does not know
the injunction operating against her in
O.S.NO.2570/2020. She does not know that, she had
obtained independent GST certificate in respect of
defendant No.1 concern. She has admitted that, the
defendant No.1 was manufacturing cartoon box. She
has denied that, due to injunction order in
O.S.NO.2570/2020, she has started business in the
24 OS.No.4714/ 2020
name of New Diamond for manufacturing of Food
colour products. She has admitted that, they are
carrying food colouring business since from 2021.
15. On appreciating the documents produced by the
plaintiff, he has produced the certified copy of the
partnership deed as per Ex.P1 and as per the said
document, plaintiff Mr.M.S.Mahadevappa and his wife
Smt. P.Vanaja are the partners and constituted the
partnership firm in the name of M/s. Venkateshwara
Fine Chem Laboratories having registered office firm
at No.113, 1st Main Road, Ashok Nagar, behind Widia,
Nagasandra Post, Bengaluru engaged in the
manufacturing blending of food grade colours (colour
mixing) by investing capital of Rs.1,20,000/- by
contributing equally and the said partnership firm has
gained Good Will and there is equal share of loss and
profit. Ex.P2 is the certificate issued by Registrar of
25 OS.No.4714/ 2020
Trademarks under Sec.23 (2) Rule 62(1) of Trademark
and it is registered in the name of the plaintiff in the
office of Registrar of Trademarks vide certificate
bearing No.1121934 dated 29-07-2004. They have
also produced Ex.P3 license issued by Bureau of
Indian Standards bearing No. CM/L/6072358 for the
purpose of running Venkateshwara Fine Chem
Laboratories for producing Synthetic Food Colour
preparations and mixtures and it is valid up to 14-02-
2021. They have also produced license
No.11219331001081 issued by the Government of
Karnataka in FSSA Act, 2006 for running
Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories which is valid
from 25-09-2019 to 24-09-2024. They have also
produced GST Registration certificate as per Ex.P5
which is valid from 01-07-2017. They have produced
the certified copy of complaint filed to Rajagopala
Nagar Police Station about the illegal use of logo of the
26 OS.No.4714/ 2020
plaintiff company by the defendants in the name of
New Diamond Label and logo and production of
similar products for which FIR has been registered in
crime No.141/2020 under Sec.51(A) and 63 of
Copyright Act and Section 420 of IPC against Smt.
Asha who is the defendant No.2. The plaintiff has
produced Ex.P8 which is containing the specification
of products which will be affixed on the products and
there is a symbol of Diamond and it has been written
Diamond Synthetic Food Colour Preparations and
Diamond is the logo used by the plaintiff firm. Ex.P8
to P-20 are the same documents. Ex.P-21 to P36 are
tax invoice receipts of Venkateshwara Food Chem
Laboratories and the symbol of diamond is the logo of
the company under which the products are being
manufactured. Ex.P37 is the certified copy of the
charge sheet and plaintiff has produced the certified
copy of the order sheet in C.C.No.18830/20.
27 OS.No.4714/ 2020
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
28 OS.No.4714/ 2020
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
29 OS.No.4714/ 2020
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,
30 OS.No.4714/ 2020
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.
17. In a decision reported in Mumtaz Ahmed V.
Pakeera Chemicals AIR 2003 ALL 114, it is held as
under:-
(I) In order to come to the conclusion
whether one mark is deceptively similar
to another the broad and essential
features of the two are to be considered.
They should not be placed side by side
to find out if there are any differences in
the design and if so whether they are of
such a character as to prevent one
design from being mistaken for the
other. It would be enough if the
impugned mark bears such an overall
similarity to the registered mark as
would be likely to misled a person
31 OS.No.4714/ 2020
usually dealing with one to accept the
other if offered to him.
18. In another decision reported in BDH Industries Ltd.,
V/s. Croydon Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2002 BOM
361, it is held that:
Apart from the structural, visual and
phonetic similarity or dissimilarity,
the question has to be considered
from the point of view of man of
average intelligence and imperfect
collection. Secondly, it is to be
considered as a whole and thirdly it
is the question of his impression.
19. In another decision relied by the learned counsel for
the plaintiff in Parle Products (P) Ltd., /vs/ J.P. & Co.,
Mysore , 1972 AIR 1359 in which it is held as under:-
1. “Two marks, exhibit when placed side
by side, many and various differences vet
main idea left on the mind by both may be
not having the two side by side .
32 OS.No.4714/ 2020
2. whether one mark in order to come to
the is deceptively similar to another, the
broad and essential features of the two
are be to considered. They should be
placed side by side to find out if there are
any differences in the design and if so,
whether they are of such character as to
prevent one design from being mistaken
for the other. It would be enough if the
impugned mark bears such an overall
similarity to the registered mark as would
be likely person usually dealing with one
to accept offered to mislead the other if to
him.
3. If one was not careful enough to note
of the wrapper on the plaintiffs goods, two
of on had seen peculiar he might easily
mistake the defendants wrapper for the
plaintiffs.
33 OS.No.4714/ 2020
4. we hold that the defendant had
infringed registered trade mark of the
plaintiff and the suit of plaintiff should be
decreed and an injunction granted
restraining the defendant-respondent
from selling or using in any manner
whatsoever biscuits in wrappers similar in
appearance to the registered trade mark of
the plaintiffs on their packets.
20. In another decision relied on by the learned counsel
for the plaintiff in RUSTON & HORNSBY LTD., V/s. The
Zamindara Engineering Co., in 1969 SCC (2) 725 in which
it is held as under:-
5. That infringement takes place not
merely by exact imitation but by the use
of a mark nearly resembling the
registered mark as to be likely to
deceive.”
6. There is a deceptive resemblance
between the word “RUSTON” and the
word “RUSTAM” and therefore the use of
34 OS.No.4714/ 2020the bare word. RUSTAM” constituted
infringement of the plaintiff’s trade mark
“RUSTON”
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
35 OS.No.4714/ 2020
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.
23. On perusal of Ex.P13 to Ex.P16, defendants
started business at no.12, 7th cross, Patel
Chennappa Industrial Estate, Peenya 2nd stage,
Bangalore-91 with brand name and logo of
DIAMOND ROSE, DIAMOND ORANGE, DIAMOND
ORANGE RED, DIAMOND LEMON YELLOW. The
plaintiff is also having same logo. Ex.P-21 to Ex.P33
are tax invoices. On careful perusal of Ex.P20, the
name of the company shown as
Sri.VENKATESHWARA FINE-CHEM LABORATORIES
36 OS.No.4714/ 2020
and the logo of diamond is used which is identical
and it will lead to confusion of customers and dealers
and said name has been selected and the company
started in the said name with intention to cheat the
plaintiff. So, I hold that, the plaintiff has proved the
defendants have committed an act of passing off, of
buying and selling the products under the logo of
NEW DIAMOND which resembles the registered
Trade Mark of plaintiff and it will mislead to the
General Public and the said logo has been used only
to cheat the plaintiff. So, I answer the Issue No.1 in
the Affirmative.
24. ISSUE NO.2:- The defendants have taken a
contention that the suit is barred by time, but there
are no materials to show that, how the suit is barred
by limitation, because after coming to know about
the use of same logo by the defendants, plaintiff filed
37 OS.No.4714/ 2020
the complaint to the police on 22-05-2020 and
registered FIR and immediately, he has filed the suit
in the same year and it is not barred by limitation.
Hence, the contention of the defendants is not
acceptable. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 in Negative.
25. ISSUE NO.3:- The plaintiff has valued the suit
under Sec.26(C) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits
Valuation Act under Article 1(i) of the Schedule II of
Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act in
respect of the relief of Mandatory Injunction and the
said relief is valued at Rs.1,000/-but he has also
sought the relief of Mandatory Injunction seeking
direction to the defendants to render true and
truthful account of all the profits earned by him
using impugned marketing materials and goods of
that of the plaintiff and direction to the defendants to
38 OS.No.4714/ 2020
pay to the plaintiff such amount as may be found
due, on such account being taken from the date of
this suit till the date of actual realization. The
plaintiff has not valued said relief and he has not
paid the court fee and with regard to relief (ii). So
court fee can be collected at the time of drawing
decree and he is liable to pay court fee on relief (ii)
of the plaint. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the
Affirmative.
26. ISSUE NO.4:- The defendants have contention
that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Since the lis between the plaintiff and defendants for
using the logo and name of the plaintiff firm and
there is no necessity of 3rd person as party to the
suit. Even they have taken bald contention that, the
suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and it
is not stated that, who are the necessary parties to
39 OS.No.4714/ 2020
this suit. Hence, this contention of defendants is not
acceptable. So, I answer Issue No.4 in the Negative.
27. ISSUE NO.5:- The plaintiff has claimed the
account of profits made by the plaintiff by
committing the act of passing off. Admittedly, it is
proved from the evidence of plaintiff that, the
defendants used logo of plaintiff firm and name of
the plaintiff firm and manufactured similar products
to that of the plaintiff company and caused loss to
the plaintiff company for which the plaintiff is
claiming the account of profits which is required to
be decided by holding separate enquiry and in this
suit, it cannot be decided. However, the plaintiff is
entitled for the said amount, for the loss caused by
the defendant where a separate enquiry is to be
done. Hence, I answer Issue No.5 in the Affirmative.
40 OS.No.4714/ 2020
28. ISSUE NO.6:-For the reasons stated above, I
hold that, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
injunction and there shall be a separate enquiry
under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for the loss caused by
the defendants. So, I answer Issue No.6 in the
Affirmative.
29. ISSUE NO.7:- For the reasons discussed above,
I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
Suit of plaintiff is hereby decreed
with costs.
Decree of permanent injunction is
granted restraining the defendants,
their agents, servants or any person
claiming under them in any manner,
whatsoever directly or indirectly from
passing off goods/ products as that of
41 OS.No.4714/ 2020the plaintiff’s goods/ products in the
name of NEW DIAMOND and under
the brand by using marketing
materials , products and boxes as that
of the plaintiff.
There shall be a separate enquiry
under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for
deciding the profits earned by the
defendants by using his trademark
and logo and defendants shall render
true and faithful accounts as of the
profits earned by them by using the
said trade mark and logo of the
plaintiff.
Office is hereby directed to draw
decree after payment of court fee on
the relief No.2 of the plaint.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed and
computerized by her, transcript thereof corrected and then
pronounced by me in open court, on this the 11th day of July, 2025)(GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI)
VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru City.
42 OS.No.4714/ 2020
AN NEXURE
1. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff/s
P.W.1 : M.S.Mahadevappa
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Plaintiff/s
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of Partnership deed dated 01-09-
2001
Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of Trade Mark Certificate
Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of Endorsement No.27 dated
16-02-2021
Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of license.
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of Registration Certificate of plaintiff
company.
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of complaint registered at
Rajagopalanagar Police Station.
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of FIR.
Certified copies of Ex.P6 to P-18 marked in
Ex.P.8 – 20 : O.S.NO.2570/2020
Certified copies of Ex.P19 to P-34 marked in
Ex.P.21-36 : O.S.NO.2570/2020.
Ex.P.37 Certified copy of charge sheet filed by Rajagopal
: Nagar Police Station.
Ex.P.38 Certified copy of the order sheet in
:
C.C.NO.18830/20
3. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendants
DW.1 : Smt.Manjula.B
43 OS.No.4714/ 2020
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Defendants
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of trade mark
certificate.
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of registration
certificate under FSSA
Ex.D.3 Certified copy of GST
registration certificate (15
pages) in series.
Ex.D.4 Certificate dated 31.07.2004
issued by the Government of
Karnataka to establish
industries.
Ex.D.5 Certificate issued by the
Directorate of Industries and
Commerce dated 12.01.2007.
Ex.D.6 GST certificate dated 12.07.2023
Ex.D.7 VAT certificate dated 30.10.2008
Ex.D.8 Certificate under Section 65-B of
Indian Evidence Act
VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru City.
[ad_2]
Source link