MANOJ KUMAR Vs. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 28 -4 -1999, passed in Civil Suit No. 11 -A/1997 by the Additional District Judge, Begumganj, District -Raisen decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the controversy are that the plaintiffs/respondents were members of Joint Hindu Family and in the year 1999 as member of the same, plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Ashok Kumar Jain, Gyan Chand Jain and Nikhil Kumar Jain started business of making and selling of 'bidis' and for the same had a trade mark of a 'tiger' as their mark on the 'bidis' and on the basis of the same, they obtained a licence from the Central Excise Department on 23 -8 -1990, which was renewed on 15 -9 -1997 bearing licence No. R.C. 09/2404.31/A/1/S.G/R/97. Sagar Division vide Sagar E.C.C. No. 27020/2074 again granted the 'tiger' label to Ashok Kumar Jain and Nikhil Kumar Jain, Begumganj, District Raisen for the production and sale of 'bidis'. The respondents/plaintiffs also contended that their application for registration of the trade mark was pending before the Mumbai Office since according to the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1959, statutory registration was required. The said trade mark and business of 'bidis' was possessed by Ashok Kumar Jain and Nikhil Kumar Jain and they were entitled to protect their interest since 'bidis' were sold by merely displaying the label of the 'tiger' and nobody had the right to use the same trade mark.

(3.) THE plaintiffs/respondents on learning about the near identical trade mark and label granted to the defendants/appellant published an advertisement in the daily newspapers 'Dainik Bhaskar and Nav Bharat' for protecting their trade mark and also filed complaint at Police Station -Begumganj, District -Raisen on 2 -11 -1997 stating that the defendants/appellant were using their trade mark and were passing off their 'bidis' in place of the plaintiffs/respondents manufactured 'bidis', which resulted in financial loss and goodwill of the plaintiffs/respondents and, therefore, the plaintiffs/respondents filed suit and prayed for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants/appellant not to use their trade mark or label similar to that of the respondents/plaintiffs either by themselves or through others.