STAR BAZAAR PVT LTD Vs. TRENT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is a company having its corporate name as "star bazaar Pvt. Ltd. " an is also carrying on business of retail in the name and style of "star Bazaar" in a departmental store at South Delhi area (and at no other place in the country ). The plaintiff was incorporated as a company on 12th March, 2003. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that it has been running the departmental store from the date of its incorporation. The plaintiff has laid a claim in the suit of acquiring goodwill on account of efficient sales, marketing policy and competitive rates of goods and has given its sales figures for the financial year from 1st April 2004 onwards till 31st March, 2008 (four financial years ). The plaintiff's contention is that in August, 2008 Mr. Naveen malhotra Director of the plaintiff company was on a business trip to Mumbai when he came across an advertisement in the Daily English Edition of Bombay times, The Times of India that the defendant was having a retail store in andheri (West), where it was running the business under the name and style of "star Bazaar" and defendant was in the same line and trade as the plaintiff. Plaintiff also learnt through a press release dated 21st August 2008 of defendant that the defendant intended to open its retail outlet in Delhi also using the trade style of "star Bazaar". The Plaintiff submits stand that it was not aware of the defendant's "star Bazaar" prior to August, 2008 and later search revealed that defendant had been using the name "star Bazaar" for its different stores in that part of the country. The Defendant had one such store in Ahmedabad also. The Plaintiff also learnt that the defendant had got trademark "star India Bazaar" registered in Class 42 and claimed that "star india Bazaar" was being used by the defendant since 26. 12. 2003.

(2.) THE Plaintiff pleaded that "star Bazaar" was an invented and coined word of the plaintiff and it could not have been used by anyonelse. The defendant adopted the mark "star Bazaar" just to pass off its goods as those of the plaintiff. The defendant with fraudulent intention copied the mark of the plaintiff being used in Delhi and used it mala fidely for its own business. It is stated that this was likely to cause confusion and deceive the consumers into believing that the Star Bazaars or star India Bazaars of defendant were affiliated, connected or associated with the plaintiff. This was likely to cause a dent in the sales, goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff as the consumers were likely to be deceived in believing that "star Bazaar" or "star India Bazaar" departmental stores opened or likely to be opened by the defendant at various places as that of the plaintiff's.

(3.) THE plaintiff claims that it advertised trading name "star Bazaar" in the region of Delhi, Gurgaon and NOIDA etc. The defendant was a very big monopolistic house known as TATA Limited and the plaintiff company has been buying various goods being sold by the defendant off the shelf and on counter from its retail showrooms, therefore the defendant was supposed to have constructive knowledge of the trademark of the plaintiff. The defendant has dishonestly adopted and used the trademark "star Bazaar" for past many years. The confusion and deception being caused by defendant was bound to result into loss to the plaintiff and purchasing public was bound to believe that goods being sold by "star Bazaar" or "star India Bazaar" of the defendant were originating from the house of the plaintiff as the trade channel of both the parties was same. Thus, the defendant intended to encash the goodwill of the plaintiff.