21.In my view, Mr. Khandekar is justified in his reliance in
decision in Jagdish Gopal Kamath & Ors. v Lime & Chilli Hospitality
Services.16 This was precisely the argument taken in that case as well,
where two common place words were used. In paragraph 34, I held
that to succeed a defendant must establish that the marks which it
claims are generic, common to the trade or descriptive are many; are
extensively used; and in fact so common that they can no longer
connote any one particular vendor, manufacturer or user. It is
necessary to show that the use in the trade is extensive. This has
been settled law for over six decades. In our case, there is a
tabulation without any source material. We are only told in the
Written Statement that the sales are extensive, but there is no
material produced to show this. There are extracts of websites. This
proves very little. A great many things are to be found on a great
many websites. Not all are true. If there exists one truism today it is
that just because something is found on the Internet it is not only for
that reason necesssarily and invariably true. Photographs of
containers do not all themselves evidence extent of sales. I do not
ask of the Defendants anything unusual or anything that Courts
have not in the past demanded of defendants who adopt these
arguments. It is no answer, in my view, to say that since there is a
known Sanskrit word for a particular plant therefore it is
axiomatically descriptive. As I have pointed out, much of the
