logo. As far as using the words jointly ‘Shree Balaji Bajarang’ is concerned, it appears that the same cannot be treated as generic. It is not the case of the defendant that ‘Shree Balaji Bajarang’ is commenly used by many. No doubt, the word ‘Balaji’ and ‘Bajarang’ if separately taken, may be generic words, but however, normally we do not find any name as “Balaji Bajarang”. Therefore, the words Balaji and Bajarang both put together cannot be called as ‘generic’. Even if a word is a generic word, but what is to be seen is because of continuous prior user whether a person has acquired any identity among the customers and whether the customers accustomed to identify the said person with that generic name. Anyhow no evidence has been let in, in this case to show that Balaji and Bajarang both together have been used by several persons and it became generic. Therefore, even assuming for a moment that the trade mark is a generic word, but it appears that the mark used by the plaintiff seems to have attained distinctiveness and it is associated with the business of the plaintiff for considerable time and admittedly the defendant has adopted the same name after more than 20 years after the plaintiff started using the name. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. Though DW.1 claimed that there are sweet shops in the same name at different places in Andhra Pradesh i.e., at Mancheeryal and Peddapally. But, admittedly, he has not furnished any particulars of those shops. DW.1 further admitted that he has not filed any material to show that the shops at Mancheeryal and Peddapally are of same name as “Sri Balaji Bajarang Mithai Bhandar”. More over Mancheeryal and Peddapally are in different districts, that too far away from Hyderabad city.
