ROYAL DRYFRUIT RANGE Vs. ROYAL SUVIDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though listed for ad-interim reliefs, as pleadings are completed, by consent, taken up for final lhearing.

(2.) Plaintiff seeks to restrain defendant by an order of injunction from infringing plaintiff's registered trade mark bearing no.2303463 in class 29 by the use of the impugned mark/name/trading style ROYAL SUVIDHA and/or ROYAL Falooda Mix and/or any other impugned mark/name/trading style/label containing the word ROYAL and also restrain defendant from passing off defendant's product and/or business in such a way which is similar to or deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered trade mark ROYAL DRYFRUIT RANGE.

(3.) It is plaintiff's case that plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the trade mark ROYAL DRYFRUIT RANGE. The trade mark certificate is at Exh.A to the plaint. Plaintiff is one Mukesh Kumar Gupta who is carrying on business as sole proprietor of Royal Dryfruit Range. The trade mark at Exh.A was obtained by plaintiff's predecessor in title who has assigned the rights to plaintiff vide a deed of assignment dated 9.1.2013. Plaintiff claims that the name/mark "ROYAL DRYFRUIT"/"ROYAL DRY FRUITS" is a trusted name in the dry fruit industry and associated with plaintiff alone and nobody else. Plaintiff states that plaintiff's shop(s) in Crawford market and Bandra were inaugurated by well known politicians. It is the case of plaintiff that plaintiff's registration contained the word "ROYAL" as its leading, essential, prominent, distinguishing and distinctive feature under the Trade Marks Act in class-29. It is stated that the subject matter of the present suit is plaintiff's registered trade mark bearing no.2303463 in class-29 for dried and cooked fruits, jams, dairy products, oils and food stuffs. The trade mark is valid and subsisting. Plaintiff has in the plaint given a statement containing plaintiff's annual turn over. For the financial year 2012-13 the sales was Rs.11,81,467/-, and for 2013-14 it was Rs.2,11,66,104/-. Plaintiff's turn over has increased by leaps and bounds and finally for the year 2017-18 it was Rs.13,43,99,525/-. Mr.Kamod for plaintiff also submitted that defendant has put up a board ROYAL SUVIDHA DRYFRUITS outside his shop but has highlighted the words ROYAL and the words SUVIDHA looks rather smudged and that itself shows the intention of defendant that he wants to pass off his business as that of plaintiff. Plaintiff carries on business inside Mahatma Jyotiba Phule market which is popularly known as Crawford market. It is the case of plaintiff that defendant whose shop is admittedly about 70 to 100 yards from plaintiff's shop is carrying on business in the name of ROYAL SUVIDHA and also selling the same goods as plaintiff and his products are sold in packets with the package containing in bold the words "ROYAL SUVIDHA". Therefore, Mr.Kamod submits defendant has breached trading mark of plaintiff and also by using a similar and/or deceptively similar mark containing the word "ROYAL" is passing off defendant's product as plaintiff's product. It is the case of plaintiff that by naming his business ROYAL SUVIDHA or ROYAL FALOODA MIX, defendant is trying to give an impression to the general public that defendant is part of or extension of plaintiff. Plaintiff states that defendant has also wrongfully applied for registration of trade mark 'ROYAL SUVIDHA' pursuant to an application filed on 23.4.2019. Therefore, plaintiff is seeking restraining order as prayed for in the Notice of Motion.