VICTORIA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. RAJDHANI MASALA CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that in 1966 late Shri Sundar Lal Jain (father of Shri R.K. Jain and Director of the plaintiff company) originally conceived and adopted the trademark / label 'Rajdhani' (device of Rajdhani in English) , (device of Rajdhani in hindi) for products like Pulses, Rice, Aata, Maida, Sooji, Rawa, Tea, Coffee, Cocoa, Sugar, Salt, Spices, Basmati Rice, Vinegar, Flavors, Essence for Food, Glucose, Chewing and Bubble Gum, Baking and Custard Powder, Honey, Sauces, Bakery Products, Confectionary, Sweets, Namkeen, Biscuits, Pastry, Cakes, Ice Cream, Peanut Paper, Noodles, roasted Edible Products, Potato Wafers And Chips, Rusk, Bakery Products, Flakes, Tapioca, Yeast, Pepper, Sabudana, Mustard, Sattu, and Corn. Subsequently, the plaintiff company was formed in 1983 and carried forward the said business under the said trademark / label 'Rajdhani'. It is clarified that the said trademarks / labels are owned by the plaintiff company and 'Rajdhani Flour Mills Limited' a sister concern of the plaintiff company vide settlement agreement between the legal heirs of late Shri Sundar Lal Jain executed on 31.03.2009. As per the said settlement agreement, the plaintiff company has ownership rights for the brand Rajdhani for manufacturing, trading and marketing of Aata, Maida, Sooji and other wheat products (bulk or retail and in any pack) and all kinds of pulses in pack of half and one kg only excluding Chana Dal. The sister concern M/s Rajdhani Flour Mills Limited has ownership rights in the brand 'Rajdhani' in respect of manufacturing, trading and marketing of besan, Chana dal and other gram related products in both wholesale and in consumer packs. The plaintiff and Rajdhani Flour Mills have co-existing rights in the trademark / labels in question.

(3.) It is pleaded that the plaintiff company is owner and proprietor of its said trademark / label on account of its honest, bona fide and prior adoption and continuous commercial use. It is claimed that the plaintiff company's trademark/label has gained tremendous reputation and goodwill and the general public associates the trademark/label and sources its origin only with the plaintiff company.