INTERNATIONAL DOG BAZAR Vs. INTERNATIONAL DOG WORLD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff -appellant herein has approached this court challenging order dated 02.07.2015 passed by Additional District Judge No. 17, Jaipur Metropolitan, who thereby dismissed its application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of civil Procedure, praying for order of temporary injunction against defendant -respondent.

(2.) Appellant, M/s. International Dog Bazar through its Proprietor Virendra Sharma, filed a suit against respondent M/s. International Dog world under Sec. 27 (1) and 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, inter alia, pleading therein that appellant has been trading in live animals and pet dogs from the year 1990 since the time of its earlier proprietor Hukam Chand, father of its present proprietor Virendra Sharma. Its registration number is 1819277, which has been renewed up to 18.05.2019. Its trade name is "International Dog Bazar". Appellant firm is renowned by its logo name "IDB". Appellant also runs a website in the name of Appellant has spent a huge money in advertisement through various media of its registered trade mark "International Dog Bazar", so as to promote services and business. On account of long user and ample advertisement, appellant's trade mark became well -known trade mark and also got secondary meaning in the market in respect of trading of live animals and pet dogs. Appellant was the first such firm to start business of this kind in the country, therefore, it is pioneer and founder of the business of live animals and pet dogs and its' abbreviated name "IDB' is printed on all its promotional materials and hoardings and display boards, and also became a trade mark. This trade mark is well known amongst its customers, users and related persons. Appellant has therefore right to use the aforesaid registered trade mark and no one else can be permitted to use such trade mark separately or independently or in a manner, which is identical and deceptive to the appellant's trade mark.

(3.) It was pleaded that respondent has recently started similar business under the trade mark "International Dog world" with its abbreviation "IDW, which is deceptive and similar to the appellant's trade mark. Respondent is fully aware about goodwill, reputation and well -known identity of appellant's trade mark "International Dog Bazar" in the market. Despite that respondent has cleverly adopted appellant's trade mark "International Dog Bazar". According to settled proposition of law related to similarity of trade marks, respondent's trade mark "International Dog world" is deceptively similar to appellant's registered trade mark "International Dog Bazar". similarly, respondent intentionally and knowingly also adopted abbreviated form "IDW", which is identical to that abbreviated form of appellant's firm "IDB". Moreover, respondent also opened a website in the name which is also deceptively identical to the website of appellant, referred to above. This only shows dishonest intention on the part of defendant. The defendant has no explanation whatsoever why he so adopted similar and deceptive trade mark in respect of same business. It clearly establishes that defendant had mala -fide intention to take advantage of goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's registered trade mark "Intentional Dog Bazar" and also abbreviated word "IDB". Plaintiff's trade mark is composite mark and broad and essential feature of plaintiff's trade mark is "International" and therefore defendant -respondent has with mala fide intention adopted deceptive similar composite name consisting two similar words of trade mark, namely, "International" and "Dog", as part of its trade mark. Defendant -respondent has no legal right to use such deceptive trade mark in respect of similar nature of work.