LAWS(KAR)-2001-11-59

BETCO ENTERPRISES Vs. PRADHAN PERFUMERS

Decided On November 09, 2001
Betco Enterprises Appellant
V/S
Pradhan Perfumers Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE name of lyrical Saint Sri Annamayya who lived in 16th Century in Andhra Pradesh a proponent of metaphysical philosophy through the devotional songs in praise of Sri Lord Venkateshwara has become a subject matter of controversy for mundane materialistic right of trade mark.

(2.) FOR convenient reference, the ranking and description of the parties is described in the manner done in the suit.

(3.) THE Plaintiff is a registered firm under the name and style M/s. Betco Enterprises doing the business in manufacturing and sale of Agarabathis (scented sticks) and in the course of business, the Plaintiff has marketed several brands of Agarabathis with different trade marks. The "Annamayya" brand is one such produce marketed by the Plaintiff since 1993 with wide publicity in visual and print media. The packing cover of Annamayya Agarabathis display the name "Annamayya" in Telugu, Tamil, English, Hindi language carrying on the picture of Lord Venkateshwara and of Saint Annamayya on the one side. It is said that the Plaintiff since the year 1993 cultivated the market for the Annamayya brand of Agarabathi in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and in the year 1996 the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with a film producer v. Doreswamy Raju and with his permission the film still picture of Akkineni Nagarjuna (a Telugu film actor who had played the role of Annamayya in a Telugu film) was added on the packing cover as result of which the sales of the product picked up quite fast and by the time of filing of the suit, the annual turnover of the product was around 1 crore 13 lakhs and odd. It is said that Defendant also started marketing their agarabathis under the name "Acharya Annamayya deceptively similar to the trade mark of the Plaintiff by plagiarizing the phonetical word and the pictorial lable marks of the Plaintiff, therefore filed the suit restraining the Defendant from passing off his products deceptively.