SANTOSH DEVI Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall decide the fate of Civil Original Suit No.21/2004 filed by plaintiff Ramesh Kumar, the respondent No.1 herein, who had at the first instance approached the District Court, Sri Ganganagar on 06.04.1998, by filing a suit however amended the suit later on, which in due course of time under the orders of this Court transferred to the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Ganganagar and was decided allowing the prayer of the plaintiff with regard to permanent injunction by giving direction to the effect that defendants themselves or through their agent directly or indirectly shall not trade in the copies, registers and slip pads using pooja name.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that he alongwith defendant No.1 started business in partnership under the name Pooja Udyog in the year 1985 and their firm was manufacturing and dealing in the copies, registers and slip pads etc. but on account of dispute between the partners having been cropped up, the work came to a standstill and therefore he filed a suit for dissolution of the firm and for rendition of accounts etc. in the District Court which was registered at No.1 of 1998 and was pending at the time of filing the suit in question and in that suit the Court granted a temporary injunction for maintaining status quo on the application for restraining the defendant from selling the finished goods, machinery and other goods of the firm and also not to collect due amount from market. It was averred that the goods manufactured by their firm became popular in the market and the firm acquired goodwill and reputation with trade name Pooja and it became a commercial name so the defendant No. 1 in order to get undue benefit started using this name Pooja by scribing it on copies, registers and slip pads etc. in big and bold letters in collusion with other defendants prefixing the word Shree in short letters, which amounted to passing of the goodwill of the trade mark and infringement of plaintiffs right as the same was property of both of them.

(3.) Defendant No.1 contested the suit and denied the averment of taking undue benefit or his collusion with defendant 2 & 3 and submitted that the partnership firm M/s. Shree Pooja Udyog belongs to Shri Vijay Prakash & Smt. Santosh Devi and he had no concern with that firm rather denied knowledge of any partnership deed having been executed between these two defendants on 11.05.1998. Defendant No.2 & 3 filed written statement to the suit jointly and stated that they had no concern with the firm Pooja Udyog in the partnership of plaintiff Ramesh Kumar and defendant Daulatram, which was closed down on account of fractions between them. The defendant No.2 & 3 also denied any ill intention in starting the business in the name of Shree Pooja Udyog and stated that the word Pooja was not the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the firm Pooja Udyog was not in existence and had been closed long back before they started business. It was also stated by the defendants that defendant No.1 was not having any right or share in Shree Pooja Udyog but the name of defendant No.3s daughter is Pooja so they adopted this name as their trade mark and started business and thereby caused no damage to the plaintiff who is not doing any business with mark Pooja since 1997 and as such the defendants have not infringed or passed off any right of the plaintiff. They rather claimed damages from plaintiff stating that the plaintiff had brought the suit in order to harass them.