Nabi & Kumar' from informing their prospective customers the services of 'DARZI' provided by them. The act of the defendant of having itself chosen the word 'DARZI', not as descriptive of its business but as a trade name, as the plaintiffs had done two decades before the defendant, is nothing but an act of dishonesty with which the Court is not only required to but bound to interdict. It is also not as if the defendant is writing the word 'DARZI' in Urdu or Hindi language, to cater to the section of the society which is unfamiliar with the word 'TAILOR'. The defendant also, as the plaintiffs, has chosen to write the word 'DARZI' in English script. The defendant is targeting the same customer base as the plaintiffs. I may in this regard also notice a shift in the society in the last few decades. Earlier, owing to limited availability of readymade garments in the country, only the rich were buying the same from foreign markets with the economically weak section of the society buying cloth and getting it tailored. Now, readymade garments are tailored in factories, mechanically with limited human skills and are available in volumes at much less price than the cost, if the cloth was to be purchased and tailoring charges given. Today, customised/bespoke tailoring, which both, plaintiffs and defendant are providing, is affordable only by the rich and highheeled, who are generally literate and understand the word 'TAILOR' and find the word 'DARZI' 'exotic' and hence with high recall value, thereby serving very well the purpose of a trademark.”
