POLSON LIMITED Vs. POLSON DAIRY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard arguments for deciding these two applications, one moved by the plaintiff seeking interim injunction till the disposal of the suit and the other moved by the defendants seeking vacation of the exparte interim injunction granted by this Court.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of these two applications, in brief, are that in the year 1888, one Seth Pestunji Edulji Poison had started business of selling coffee in Bombay and in 1900, he started using the trade mark 'Polson' which was part of his name for selling coffee. Subsequently, he expanded his business and in about 1915 he had started marketing and selling butter, cheese, flour, etc. besides coffee under the said trade mark 'Polson'. It is the case of the plaintiff that the brand 'Polson' became immensely popular due to its high quality goods. 'Polson' rather became synonymous with quality butter being marketed under the said name in the minds of the people. In about 1930, he had developed a modern dairy at Anand (Gujarat) by the name of Poison Model Dairy which inter-alia produced butter under mechanised process. In the year 1938, Polson Private Limited was incorporated to further expand the business of said Polson.

(3.) So, it is averred in the plaint that for over a period of time, the said company became a pioneer in the establishment and development of dairy sector and played a significant role in the development of "Agmark Scheme" by the Central Government. The plaintiff expanded its activities to the eastern part of India in 1950 when it established a pilot plant in Khagaul in Bihar. Another dairy was established at Digha Ghat near Patna. in the year 1957. It is also averred that the plaintiff also started dealing in tea in 1963. So, it is averred that plaintiff's commercial activities spanned from coffee and tea to flour, table creamery, butter, etc. which were all sold under the trade mark 'Polson' which continues to be House-Mark and Corporate Name of the plaintiff company. Reliance has been placed by the plaintiff with regard to all these facts on plaintiff's brochure that was published on its 75th Anniversary (1888-1963) as well as in the In- House Journals "Poison Trading" published in various years. The plaintiff had given the sale figures which ran into crores every year for the years 1966 to 1978.