K.RAMAPANDI Vs. TAMIL NADU ORGANICS INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, namely K.Ramapandi, carrying on the trade as Vasanthi Oil & Co., and Tamil Nadu Oil Industries/trade at Door No.46, Appusali Street, Saligrammam, Chennai-600 046, averred as follows:

(2.) The defendant has filed a written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint and would contend that the word 'SUNOLA' is a very well trade name associated with Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited, vide Trade Mark No.331858. The defendant had applied for registration of the Trade Mark 'SUNOLA GOLD' and registration was granted on 26.02.2002 in Reg.No.115838 and it has also obtained certificate of authorization under the provisions of Agricultural Produce (Gardening and Marketing) Act in Sl.No.A/1 No.002503 dated 03.11.2003 and it has also registered the same under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act. The defendant would further state that it's turnover for the year 2003 and 2004 was Rs.1.27 Crores and for the years 2004 and 2005 was Rs.2.4 crores and the registration of the Trade Mark 'SUNOLA GOLD' was on the basis of the understanding that the Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Corporation Limited was not interested in the Trade Mark. It is further averred by the defendant that the plaintiff has filed ORA/77/2005/TM/CH/4174 before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai [ in short 'IPAB'] to remove the Trade Mark No.331858 registered in the name of 'SUNOLA' by the Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Corporation Limited and it was opposed by the said Corporation by filing the counter affidavit and the IPAB, after taking note of the rival submissions, has dismissed the application of the plaintiff, vide order dated 04.08.2006 and the said fact has been totally suppressed by the plaintiff. The defendant would further state that the plaintiff would not have commenced it's operations on 20.12.2001 and their application for registration is fraudulent and even for the sake of arguments that the Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Corporation Limited did not apply for renewal, the plaintiff would not have submitted the application till 2003 and hence, prayed for dismissal of the Suit.

(3.) The following issues are framed for trial: