HIDESIGN Vs. HI DESIGN CREATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff Mrs. Pampa Kapoor is carrying o the business under the name of M/s HIDESIGN at and from 4, Caserne Stree? Post Box No. 92, Pondicherry. It is stated in the plaint that she is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, exporting and selling feather garments, bags, belts, brief cases, wallets etc. for the past several years.

(2.) The plaintiff claims that she is the prior adopter of the said t A mark vis-a-vis the defendant, and is entitled to use the said name as a prior adopter of the said "design". It is also asserted that in view of the established business and sale promotion and extensive and continuous regular commercial user, the said trade mark HIDESIGN had acquired secondary meaning with regard to the goods of the plaintiff, and has earned a valuable good-will and enviable reputation. This plea does not seem to be applicable as the concept of secondary meaning comes into play when the primary meaning is different. As the word combination HIDESIGN is not a word found in English dictionary, secondary meaning concept is inapplicable.

(3.) The plaintiff asserts that in April, 1980, she became aware that the defendants are manufacturing and selling the same goods or description of goods as that of the plaintiff, under the same or deceptively similar trade mark HIDESIGN.