RAJNI DUA Vs. BHUSHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute among the family members over the use of trade mark/logo "T-Series" is the foundation of this litigation.

(2.) . Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are very closely related to defendants No. 1 to 4. The present litigation has to be appreciated in the prospective of a litigation inter se family members. Admittedly, late Mr. Gulshan Kumar was the chief architect of this family. He alone ought to get the entire credit for developing the immense family business. Unfortunately he died in very tragic circumstances on 12th August, 1997. The dispute involved in this litigation also started immediately after his demise. It is aband untly clear that during his life-time late Mr. Gulshan Kumar kept the family members in good discipline and the entire family worked as a team. Late Mr. Gulshan Kumar conceived of trade mark, logo and artistic works "T-Series". The business was initially started in a humble manner with the trade mark and logo T- Series but within a short span of time it flourished immensely. Late Mr. Gulshan Kumar acquired the name of king of cassette industries' in India. The Super Cassettes Industries was the first business venture of the family which was carried with the trade mark and logo "T-Series" but later on because of the tremendous success in the business, the family business was diversified and they started manufacturing other goods with the same trade mark and logo "T-Series".

(3.) . Plaintiff No. 2 is the brother and plaintiff No. 1 is the sister-in-law of late Mr. Gulshan Kumar. During the life-time of late Mr. Gulshan Kumar, "Gopal Soap Industries", was started by plaintiff No. 2, Gopal Krishan in the year 1988. It started manufacturing, marketing and selling 'Detergent Powder, Detergent Cake, Soaps', etc. Plaintiff No. 1, Mrs. Rajni Dua also in the life-time of late Mr. Gulshan Kumar started manufacturing 'Dhoop, Agarbatti, Havan Samagri and allied goods' since 1996. The plaintiffs since its inception, started using the trade mark/logo "T- Series". It may be pertinent to mention that only plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 in the entire family have been manufacturing the aforesaid goods and no one else has manufactured or marketted these items till date. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants started creating serious problems in the day-to-day functioning of their business and the plaintiffs have been compelled to approach this Court.