KRISHAN GOPAL GOEL Vs. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is for injunction restraining the defendant from using the word 'RANGOLI' or any other trade mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' reputed trade mark RANGOLI in respect of paint. There are two plaintiffs in this suit. Ist plaintiff is carrying of business under the name and style of Rasayanshala, he being the proprietor and the second plaintiff is a Company. Ist plaintiff is the Managing Director. They have common interest in the subject matter. The defendant is a Company having business at Calcutta. In paragraphs 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have put the case thus :-

(2.) . About the defendant plaintiff states in paragraph 9 in the following words :-

(3.) . In paragraph 13 the plaintiff has mentioned about the letter dated 30.4.90 from the defendant in respect of the trade mark RANGOLI. According to the plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1 sent the reply on 17.9.90 asserting that the plaintiff No. 1 is the exclusive proprietor of the trade mark RANGOLI. The further case of the plaintiff is that thereafter the plaintiffs did not notice goods of the defendant in the market. According to the plaintiffs, the cause of action arose in the Ist week of November 1993 when the plaintiff No. 1 came to know about the offending activities of the defendant. On 14.2.94 the plaint in this case was presented. On 2.9.94 the defendant filed the written statement in the suit stating that the defendant had filed a suit claiming right in the trade mark RANGOLI and had filed a suit on the file of the 5th City Judge, Calcutta and had obtained order of injunction against the plaintiffs. In the written statement in answer to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint the defendant had mentioned the facts and circumstances as to how the defendant came to use this trade mark. The same is as under :-