Dismissed

Relish Snacks Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC6 Dec 2019CS/781/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil suit for infringement of the trade mark RELISH and passing off against a manufacturer of artificial sweetener. Neither party held a registration when the plaint was presented; the plaintiff's class 30 application was opposed and pending. The court held the Section 23 deeming provision cannot create a cause of action and that passing off was unproved, and dismissed the suit with costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Relish Snacks Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt. Ltd. — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 02.12.2019

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON : 06.12.2019

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶7

Civil Suit No.781 of 2010 Relish Snacks Pvt Ltd., No.15 E, Brindavan Nagar Extn, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087. ... Plaintiff Vs M/s.Virchow Biotech Pvt., Ltd., Tranding as Relish, and having address at Plot No.7, I.D.A., Jeedi Metla, Hydrabad. ... Defendant

¶8

This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., read with Order IV Rule 1 of High Court Original Side Rules and Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

¶9

1/26

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

The Plaint averment in brief:-

¶14

The plaintiff is carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing food products. The plaintiff has adopted a distinctive trade mark “RELISH” for their food products. It has distinctive and peculiar colour, scheme, combination, layout, border and get-up. The products of the plaintiff under the said trade mark are being marketed in distinct packing and the same is distinct for each product. The plaintiff has created and designed its own pouch/sachet for various snacks manufactured and marketted under the trade mark “RELISH”.

¶15

2.Since 2002, the plaintiff has business relationship with all retail outlets like Food World, Spencers, Pantaloon, Heritage, Reliance, Tata Trent Oceanic, Nilgiris, ABRL, Food Express, etc. Due to high standard, quality and hygienic way of preparation and meticulous efforts, the plaintiff's trade mark

¶16

has captured a distinctive name in the trade and among the general public. The product of the plaintiff carrying the trade mark “RELISH” includes variety of refreshments, snacks, savories, etc., which are consumed by the buyers along with coffee, tea, juice, milk and other milk products as refreshment

¶17

2/26

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶20

foods. The plaintiff has applied for the registration of the trade mark “RELISH” under the following trade mark application number in various classes :-

¶21

*Sl.No* *Date of* *Application*	*Trade Mark* *(word/label* )		*Applicatio* *n Number*
1 28.10.2009	RELISH all time snacks	30	187753
2 28.10.2009	RELISH all time snacks	30	1877572
3 18.12.2009	RELISH	01	1898285
4 18.12.2009	RELISH	05	1898291
5 18.12.2009	RELISH	29	1898290
6 18.12.2009	RELISH	30	1898289
7 18.12.2009	RELISH	31	1898292
8 18.12.2009	RELISH	32	1898288
9 18.12.2009	RELISH	35	1898286
10 18.12.2009	RELISH	42	1898287
11 21.11.2006	RELISH	30	1506302

¶22

3.The plaintiff has done extensive business under the said trade mark

¶23

and its products are highly popular among the traders and public. Thus, the trade mark “RELISH” is always being associated with the products of the plaintiff and none else. The plaintiff's turn over was more than three crores for the financial year 2008-2009. Due to effective sales, promotional efforts,

¶24

3/26

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶27

the plaintiff's product with trade mark “RELISH” has acquired high popularity and enviable reputation and goodwill in the market.

¶28

4.While fact being so, during 2^nd May 2010, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant are marketing their products in the name and style of

¶29

“RELISH” per se in respect of diet sugar. The trade mark used by the defendant is identically similar to the trade mark of the plaintiff. By extensive use of the trade mark and sales promotional efforts, the trade mark “RELISH” has become house hold name in respect of all various food preparations and refreshment varieties and is being associated with the plaintiff. Therefore, the adoption and use of the identical trade mark word “RELISH per se” by the defendant would result in enormous confusion in the market and the consuming public would be mislead to believe that the products sold by the defendant also emanate from the plaintiff. The use of the offending trade mark by the defendant, which is similar and identical to that of the plaintiff's reputed trade mark label “RELISH” is only to enrich themselves at the cost of the reputation and popularity of the plaintiff's trade mark “RELISH”.

¶30

5.The defendant has continuously copied the trade mark of the plaintiff with a malafide intention to trade upon the goodwill and reputation attached 4/26

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶32

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶33

to the original and age old trade mark “RELISH”. The products of the plaintiff and the defendant are placed in the same section and more fully in the same rack with mala fide intention to earn profit by cashing upon the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff. The adoption and use of the similar / deceptively similar trade mark of the plaintiff is only with ulterior motive to earn profit on the goodwill and reputation attached by the use of the trade mark “RELISH”. Therefore, the defendant is guilty of infringing the trade mark of the plaintiff and for passing off.

¶34

6.With the above averments, the plaintiff has sought for the following relief:-

¶35

“a)Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men,

¶36

agents, servants, or any one claiming through it from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's trade mark “RELISH” either by using the offending trade mark “RELISH” or any other Trade mark which is identical, similar or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's trade mark “RELISH”.

¶37

b) permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agents, servants or any one claiming through it from in any manner passing off its goods as that of the plaintiff's by using the offending trade mark “RELISH” or by using any other trade mark which is similar or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's trade mark “RELISH” either by manufacturing or offering for sale or in

¶38

5/26

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶40

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶41

any manner advertising the same;

¶42

c)Directing the defendant to surrender to the plaintiff the entire stocks, pouches, with the offending trademark “RELISH” and unused infringing trade mark labels with the offending trade mark “RELISH” together with blocks and dies for destruction.

¶43

d)Directing the defendant to render a true and faithful account of the profits earned by them through the sale of their products bearing the infringing label “RELISH” which is similar or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark “RELISH” and directing the payment of such profits to the plaintiff.

¶44

e)directing the defendant to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.”

¶45

7. Written statement, in brief:-

¶46

The defendant in his written statement, averred that the defendant

¶47

used the word “RELISH per se” as a trade mark and it is not the trade name. The trade name of the defendant is M/s.Virchow Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is the registered proprietor of their respective trade marks. Hence, the suit for infringement of trade mark is not maintainable.

¶48

6/26

¶49

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶50

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶51

8.The application made by the plaintiff for registration of the trade mark was opposed by the third parties and the plaintiff has not obtained registration in its favour. The plaintiff cannot presume that their application for trade mark will be accepted and registered and seek a presumptive relief without cause of action. The relief of infringement of trade mark is premature and the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground. The suit filed with combined cause of action is liable to be rejected since one of the cause of action alleged does not exist.

¶52

9.The plaintiff's trade mark application under No.1877573 under class 30 is opposed by a third party which claim to have been using the trade mark from the year 1986. The plaintiff therefore, cannot claim to be prior user of the trade mark “RELISH” . Further, the other trade mark applications of the plaintiff are also opposed on the ground that the trade mark “RELISH” is identical to other registered trade mark. Thus, the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive right over the word “RELISH”.

¶53

10.The word “RELISH” is common to the trade and no one can claim monopoly over the same. Several others are using the trade mark “RELISH”

¶54

for identical products as that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not the first or prior user of the trade mark “RELISH”. The defendant is manufacturer of 7/26

¶55

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶56

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶57

artificial sweetener / diet sugar, sugar etc. It is not a food item. The products of the plaintiff are refreshment snacks and savories. Whereas, the defendant product is an artificial sweetener / diet sugar, sugar. The product of the defendant is classified as lifestyle product. Contrarily, the product of the plaintiff is classified as food items. The purchasers of the defendant product is informed public who purchased the same mostly after medical advice. The quality and reputation of the plaintiff products are not known to the defendant. The trade mark used by the defendant is visually dis-similar to that of the plaintiff trade mark. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of infringement of trade mark.

¶58

11.This Court, re-drafted the issues framed earlier and settled it on 06.12.2018 as below:-

¶59

“(i) Whether the plaintiff has obtained registration of the trademark RELISH? If not, whether the suit for relief of permanent injunction based on infringement of trademark is maintainable?

¶60

(ii) Whether several other third parties are using the trademark RELISH in respect of various food products and whether the trademark RELISH is common to the trade as regards food products?

¶61

8/26

¶62

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶63

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶64

(iii) Whether the plaintiff's products and the defendant's products are different?

¶65

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of infringement of the trademark?

¶66

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from passing off its goods as that of the plaintiff?

¶67

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim exclusive right over the use of the word RELISH as a trademark?

¶68

(vii) What other relief/s, parties are entitled to?”

¶69

12.On behalf of the plaintiff, the Director of the plaintiff company

¶70

Mr.Satish was examined as P.W.1. 11 documents were marked as plaintiff Exhibits. On the side of the defendant, Dr.Hemanth Nandigala, Director of the defendant company was examined as D.W.1. 13 documents were marked as defence exhibits.

¶71

13.From the exhibits, relied by the plaintiff as well as the defendant, this Court finds that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had a registered trade mark on the date of filing of the suit. Ex.P.8 series (trade mark

¶72

9/26

¶73

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶74

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶75

certificates) for the trade mark “RELISH” issued in favour of the plaintiff. For

¶76

easy reference, the content of Ex.P.8 series is extracted below:-

¶77

*Sl.* No	*Date of* *Application*	*Trade* *Mark* *(word/* *label)*	*Class*	*Applicati* on *Number*	*Goods Description*
1	18.12.2009	RELISH	05	1898291	Veterinary and sanitary preparations:Dietetic substances adapted for medical use, food for babies, plasters, materials for dressings; materials for stopping teeth,
					dental wax,
					disinfectants; preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides and
					herbicides.
2	18/12/2009	RELISH	32	1898288	Beers;Mineral and Aerated Water and
					other non-alcoholic
					drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrup
					& nbsp and other preparations for making beverages
3	18/12/2009	RELISH	35	1898286	Advertising; Business
					Management; Business Administration; office functions
4	18.12.2009	RELISH	29	1898290	Meat; Fish; Poultry and Game; Meat Extracts; Preserved,

¶78

10/26

¶79

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶80

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶81

Sl. Date of Trade Class Applicati Goods Description
No Application Mark on
(word/ Number
label)
Dried and Cooked
Fruits and Vegetable;
Jellies, Jams, Fruits
Sauces; Eggs, Milk
and Milk Products;
Edible Oils and Fats.
5 18/12/2009 RELISH 31 1898292 Agricultural,
Horticultural and
Forestry Products and
Grains not included in
other classes; live
Animals, fresh fruits
and vegetables;
seeds, natural plants
and flower.
14.Ex.P.9 series is the plaintiff's applications relating to the registration

¶82

of trade mark in class 30. This application is pending consideration for registration in view of objection. This fact is seen from Exs.D.12 and D.13 relied by the defendant.

¶83

15.On the side of the defendant, Exs.D.4 to D.8 are relied. These exhibits are the certified copy of trade mark registration issued in favour of the defendant. The content of the certificates are extracted below:-

¶84

11/26

¶85

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶86

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶87

*Sl.* No	*Registration* *Date*	*Trade* *Mark* *(Word/* *Mark)*	*Class*	*Applica* *tion* *Number*	*Goods Description*
1	21.05.2010	RELISH	1	1969629	Chemical used in industry, science photography, agriculture, horticulture and forestry, unprocessed artificial resins, unprocessed
					plastics, manure, fire extinguishing compositions; tempering and soldering preparations; chemical substances for preserving food stuffs; tanning substances; adhesive used in industry
2	21.05.2010	RELISH	29	1969631	Meat; Fish; Poultry and Game; Meat Extracts; Preserved, Dried and Cooked Fruits and Vegetable; Jellies, Jams,
					Fruits Sauces; Eggs, Milk and Milk Products; Edible Oils and Fats.
3	21.05.2010	RELISH	1	1969636	Chemical used in industry, science photography, agriculture, horticulture and forestry, unprocessed artificial resins, unprocessed plastics, manure, fire
					extinguishing compositions; tempering and soldering preparations; chemical substances for preserving food stuffs; tanning substances; adhesive used in industry

¶88

12/26

¶89

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶90

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶91

Sl. Registration Trade Class Applica Goods Description
No Date Mark tion
(Word/ Number
Mark)
4 21.05.2010 RELISH 1 1969634 Chemical used in
industry, science
photography, agriculture,
horticulture and forestry,
unprocessed artificial
resins, unprocessed
plastics, manure, fire
extinguishing
compositions; tempering
and soldering
preparations; chemical
substances for preserving
food stuffs; tanning
substances; adhesive
used in industry
5 21.05.2010 RELISH 1 1969635 Chemical used in
industry, science
photography, agriculture,
horticulture and forestry,
unprocessed artificial
resins, unprocessed
plastics, manure, fire
extinguishing
compositions; tempering
and soldering
preparations; chemical
substances for preserving
food stuffs; tanning
substances; adhesive
used in industry
16.The defendant has applied for trade mark registration and got
registration certificates for goods and service falling under classes 1 and 29.
The applications for registration were made by the defendant on 21.05.2010

¶92

13/26

¶93

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶94

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶95

and the certificates were issued on 29.06.2016.

¶96

17.The learned counsel for the defendant relying upon Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) would submit that there can be no action for infringement or unregistered trade mark. On the date of the suit, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant were Proprietor of any registered trade mark. Therefore, the suit for infringement of trade mark will not lie.

¶97

18.Contrarily, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that Section 23 of the Act specifically states that the trade mark when registered shall relate back to the date of making of the said application and that date shall be deemed to be date of registration. Since, the plaintiff has made application for registration on 18.12.2009, much prior to the filing of the suit, and registration certificate was issued pending suit, the plaintiff should deemed to be a registered trade mark holder on the date of presenting the plaint and the bar under section 27 of the Act will not apply to the plaintiff. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would rely upon the judgment of this Court in P.L.Anwar Basha vs. M.Natarajan (AIR 1980 Madras 1956).

¶98

14/26

¶99

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶100

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶101

19.Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act reads as below:-

¶102

“27. No action for infringement of unregistered trade mark.—

¶103

(1) No person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of an unregistered trade mark.

¶104

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect rights of action against any person for passing off goods or services as the goods of another person or as services provided by another person, or the remedies in respect thereof.”

¶105

20.Whereas, Section 23 of the Act is a deeming provision which date back the effect of registration to the date of application. Section 23 of the Act is extracted below:-

¶106

“23. Registration.—

¶107

(1) Subject to the provisions of section 19, when an application for registration of a trade mark has been accepted and either—

¶108

(a) the application has not been opposed and the time for notice of opposition has expired; or

¶109

(b) the application has been opposed and the opposition has been decided in favour of the applicant, the Registrar shall, unless the Central Government otherwise directs, register the said trade mark and the trade mark when registered shall be registered as of the date of the making

¶110

15/26

¶111

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶112

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶113

of the said application and that date shall, subject to the provisions of section 154, be deemed to be the date of registration.

¶114

(2) On the registration of a trade mark, the Registrar shall issue to the applicant a certificate in the prescribed form of the registration thereof, sealed with the seal of the Trade Marks Registry.

¶115

(3) Where registration of a trade mark is not completed within twelve months from the date of the application by reason of default on the part of the applicant, the Registrar may, after giving notice to the applicant in the prescribed manner, treat the application as abandoned unless it is completed within the time specified in that behalf in the notice.

¶116

(4) The Registrar may amend the register or a certificate of registration for the purpose of correcting a clerical error or an obvious mistake.”

¶117

21.In this case, the plaint for infringement of trade mark and passing

¶118

off was presented on 31.08.2010. If Section 27 of the Act has to be applied in isolation on the date of presenting the plaint neither the plaintiff

¶119

nor the defendant had registered the trade mark in respect of “RELISH”.

¶120

22.If the deeming provision as contemplated under section 23 of the

¶121

Act has to be pressed into service, both the plaintiff as well as the defendant

¶122

16/26

¶123

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶124

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶125

had registered trade mark of “RELISH” in respect of different classes.

¶126

Therefore, either way, the relief of infringement of trade mark has to fail. Because, under section 30 (2)(e) of the Act, limits are imposed on the effect of registered trade marks which says that nothing in Section 29 of the Act shall be construed as preventing the use of registered trade mark by any person for the purposes identifying the needs or service as those of Proprietor provided the use. Section 30 (2)(e) of the Act reads as below:-

¶127

(2) A registered trade mark is not infringed where— (a).............. (b)......... (c)............ (d)...........

¶128

or more trade marks registered under this Act which are identical or nearly resemble each other, in exercise of the right to the use of that trade mark given by registration under this Act.”

¶129

respective parties are analysed, the plaintiff's products are in respect of snacks and savories. The defendant product is artificial sweetener. The 17/26

¶130

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶131

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶132

plaintiff is the trade mark holder for goods classified under classes 5,32,35,29 and 31. The defendant is the holder of the registered trade mark in respect of goods classified under classes 1 and 29.

¶133

24.The plaintiff in his deposition, fairly admits that the products of the plaintiff and the defendant are entirely different and he is only concerned with the brand and not the product. When competent authority on considering the application of the respective parties have granted trade mark of “RELISH” for the respective product falling under different classes and when the trade mark application of the plaintiff for the products under class 30 (snacks and savories) for which the plaintiff claims to have distinct and exclusive market and reputation, is opposed and pending, the cause of action for sustaining suit for infringement of trade mark fails. At the most, the plaintiff can only approach the appropriate authority for rectification of the trade mark given to the defendant or/and try to get registration for products under class 30. The suit for infringement of trade mark against the other registered trade mark holder for different product is not maintainable.

¶134

Passing Off:-

¶135

To sustain a suit for passing off, the plaintiff has to satisfy the three

¶136

18/26

¶137

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶138

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶139

tests viz., (i)disrepute to goodwill; (ii)deliberate misrepresentation and (iii)possibility of deception.

¶140

“ In Oertli Vs. Bowman (1957) RPC 388, (at page 397) the gist of passing off action was defined by stating that it was essential to the success of any claim to passing off based on the use of given mark or get-up that the plaintiff should be able to show that the disputed mark or get-up has become by user in the country distinctive of the plaintiffs goods so that the use in relation to any goods of the kind dealt in by the plaintiff of that mark or get up will be understood by the trade and the public in that country as meaning that the goods are the plaintiffs goods. It is in the nature of acquisition of a quasi-proprietary right to the exclusive use of the mark or get-up in relation to goods of that kind because of the plaintiff having used or made it known that the mark or get-up has relation to his goods. Such right is invaded by anyone using the same or some deceptively similar mark, get-up or name in relation to goods not of plaintiff. The three elements of passing off action are the reputation of goods, possibility of deception and likelihood of damages to the plaintiff.”

¶141

26.The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the nice

¶142

classification test has to be applied in this case. It is not the class under

¶143

19/26

¶144

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶145

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶146

which the trade mark is granted but the allied and cognate use of the product has to be considered. No doubt, the allied and cognate test has to be applied when a case of infringement of trade mark is considered but, in this case, since the plaintiff as well as the defendant being holder of the registered trade mark for different products, the application of nice classification principle cannot be applied by the Court. When the competent authority had already being prima facie satisfied and granted registration to the parties. If at all, the plaintiff is aggrieved, he can approach the appropriate authority for rectification as per the law.

¶147

27.The plaintiff, to establish passing off and damages has examined himself as P.W.1 and has marked 11 exhibits. Exs.P.1, P.3 to P.7 are purchase orders of various customers of the plaintiff. Ex.P.8 series is the trade mark certificates and Ex.P.9 series is the application for trade mark registration.

¶148

28.The testimony of P.W.1 is a self serving testimony unassertive of any loss of goodwill or damages. There is no evidence to show how the defendant has misrepresented and exploiting the goodwill of the plaintiff by using the word “RELISH per se”.

¶149

20/26

¶150

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶151

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶152

29.For none of is contentions, the plaintiff has placed evidence. A mere self service statement by the plaintiff without any substantial piece of evidence to corroborate the above facts cannot be sufficient to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff.

¶153

30.Contrary to the contention of the plaintiff, that the goodwill of the plaintiff has been exploited by the defendant, it is placed on record by the defendant that he had been marketing the product of artificial sugar, for a substantial period by placing advertisements in dailies in erstwhile composite state of Andhra Pradesh where the registered office of the defendant is located.

¶154

31.The plaintiff who asserted the fact of infringement and passing off could not place evidence to show that it has reputation of high value among the public and the said reputation and goodwill has been affected due to misrepresentation of the defendant which has led to monetary loss.

¶155

32.In the result, this Court concludes that the combined reading of

¶156

Sections 27 and 23 of the Act, with pleadings and evidence, the deeming provision cannot give a right to the plaintiff to sue for infringement of trade 21/26

¶157

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶158

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶159

mark on the date of filing the suit. The cause of action for filing the suit for infringement of trade mark should be on the date of presenting the suit. Even if the deeming class is applied in this case, both the plaintiff and the defendant had applied for the same trade mark before the date of presentation of the suit. Hence, the dispute has to be resolved only by the competent authority under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Accordingly, Issue Nos.(i), (iv) and (vi) are answered in negative.

¶160

33.The contention of the plaintiff is that the trade mark “RELISH” being distinctively used by the plaintiff and it is not a trade mark common to the trade whereas, the contention of the defendant that the trade mark “RELISH” is used by the other persons and there is no exclusivity to the trade mark “RELISH”. To establish that the trade mark “RELISH” is common to register or to prove it is common to trade, both the parties have not taken any interest to let in evidence. This issue cannot be ascertained by the oral evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant alone. There must be documentary evidence and ocular evidence of the third parties other than the sparring party. The materials placed by the defendant, namely Exs.D.12 and D.13, it appears that few applications of the plaintiff seeking registration of the trade mark has been opposed by the third parties and the same are pending for consideration. The plaintiff has failed to establish that he has 22/26

¶161

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶162

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶163

goodwill or reputation attached to his goods. Or, misrepresentation by the defendant to the public likely to lead the public to believe that the goods offered by the defendant are the goods of the plaintiff or in a quia timet action that he is likely to suffer damage by erroneous belief in danger. Hence, Issue Nos.(ii) and (v) are answered in negative.

¶164

34.It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff is trader in snacks and savories whereas, the defendant is trader in artificial sugar. P.W.1 on oath admits that the product of the plaintiff and the product of the defendant are different. Hence, Issue No.(iii) is answered accordingly.

¶165

35.In view of all the above findings, the plaintiff is not entitled for any

¶166

relief sought for. Hence, the suit is dismissed with costs.

¶167

06.12.2019

¶168

jbm

¶169

Index: Yes Speaking order/non speaking order

¶170

23/26

¶171

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶172

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶173

List of Witnesses examined on the side of the Plaintiff:-

¶174

1.Mr.Satish – P.W.1

¶175

List of Witnesses examined on the side of the Defendant :-

¶176

1.Dr.Hemanth Nandigala – D.W.1

¶177

List of Exhibits marked on the side of the Plaintiff:-

¶178

1.Ex.P.1 – dated 06.06.2002 – Original Purchase Agreement between the plaintiff and Food World Supermarket Ltd.,

¶179

2.Ex.P.2 – 2002-2003 – Original Certificate of Appreciation

¶180

3.Ex.P.3 – dated 23.12.2006 – Original communication sent from TAJ Air Caterers to M/s.Relish Snacks Pvt. Ltd.,

¶181

4.Ex.P.4 – dated 08.01.2007 – Original communication sent from TAJ Air Caterers to M/s.Relish Snacks Pvt. Ltd.,

¶182

5.Ex.P.5 – dated 17.04.2007 – Original purchase order issued by Reliance Retail Ltd.,

¶183

6.Ex.P.6 (series) – dated 30.12.2007; 26.03.2008 and 05.08.2008 08.01.2007 – Office copy of Invoices raised by the plaintiff to M/s.Shanta Agencies, Bangalore.

¶184

7.Ex.P.7 – dated 18.05.2005 – Original purchase order from M/s.Fab Mall (India) Pvt., Ltd., along with agreement.

¶185

8.Ex.P.8 Series – dated Nil – Photocopies of trade mark certificate for the trademark “RELISH” in Class 5,32,35,29 & 31 under respective Nos.1898291, 1898288, 1898286, 1898290 & 1898292.

¶186

9.Ex.P.9 series – dated Nil - Photocopies of application for registration in Class 30 under Nos.1898289 and 1506302

¶187

10.Ex.P.10 – dated Nil – Photocopy of plaintiff's brochure

¶188

11.Ex.P.11 – dated Nil – Original Sales Bill

¶189

24/26

¶190

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶191

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶192

List of Exhibits marked on the side of the Defendant:-

¶193

1.Ex.D.1 – dated 25.09.2015 – Search Report generated from the trademark office Website.

¶194

2.Ex.D.2 – dated 25.09.2016 – Board Resolution authorising D.W.1 to depose on behalf of the defendant.

¶195

3.Ex.D.3 – dated 19.11.2016 - Board Resolution authorising D.W.1 to depose on behalf of the defendant.

¶196

4.Ex.D.4 – dated 29.06.2016 – Certified copy of trademark registration No.1969629.

¶197

5.Ex.D.5 – dated 29.06.2016 – Certified copy of trademark registration No.1969636.

¶198

6.Ex.D.6 – dated 29.06.2016 – Certified copy of trademark registration No.1969631.

¶199

7.Ex.D.7 – dated 29.06.2016 – Certified copy of trademark registration No.1969634 for the trademark 'RELISH'

¶200

8.Ex.D.8 – dated 29.06.2016 – Certified copy of trademark registration No.1969635 for the trademark 'RELISH'

¶201

9.Ex.D.9 – dated Nil – Sample Invoices for sale of products bearing trademark 'Relish' by the defendant.

¶202

10.Ex.D.10 – dated Nil – Original Print Advertisements for the trademark 'Relish' in various magazines and newspapers.

¶203

11.Ex.D.11- dated Nil – Sales Turnover and Advertisement details of the defendant for the trademark Relish

¶204

12.4.Ex.D.12 – dated 25.09.2015 – Trademark application status of the trademark No.1898289 in Class 30 for the trademark 'RELISH' by the plaintiff.

¶205

13.Ex.D.13 – dated 25.09.2015 – Trademark application status of the trademark No.1506302 in Class 30 for the trademark 'RELISH' by the plaintiff.

¶206

25/26

¶207

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶208

C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶209

G.JAYACHANDRAN.J.,

¶210

jbm

¶211

Pre Delivery Judgment made in
C.S.No.781 of 2010

¶212

06.12.2019

¶213

26/26

¶214

http://www.judis.nic.in

Relish Snacks Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Relish Snacks Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaisingh Jain Vs T.K.S.Pugazhendi

King Point Enterprise Co. Ltd. Vs M/S. Maarg (India)

Dvara Trust and another Vs Earthy Goods and Services Pltd

M/S.Lifestyle International Vs M/S.Madharsha

M/S.Drasis Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs.Nilofer

Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. Vs M/s.R.K.M.Powergen Pvt. Ltd.