Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 831
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN, J.
MR. SHOAIB HAROON S/O. LATE HAROON SULAIMAN SAIT - APPELLANT
Vs.
MR. MOHAMMED HASSAN S/O. LATE M. YUSUFF SAIT - RESPONDENT
MFA No. 6734 of 2014 (I.P.R.)
Decided On : 03-11-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Sri Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. T.V. Vijay Raghavan
The appellant must establish a prima-facie case and approach the court with clean hands to be entitled to relief.
Headnote:
Trademark - Partnership Dispute - Trade marks Act, 1999 - Section 2(zc), Section 39 - The Only Place - [TRADEMARK] - [PARTNERSHIP DISPUTE] - [Trade marks Act, 1999 - Section 2(zc), Section 39] - The court discussed the ownership and transmission of the unregistered trademark 'The Only Place' and its goodwill. It interpreted the provisions of the Trade marks Act, 1999 and the Islamic Law of inheritance to determine the rightful inheritor of the trademark's goodwill. The court's decision was influenced by the failure of the appellant to establish a prima-facie case and approach the court with clean hands.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and respondent were in a partnership firm 'M/s Aaaminah Steak & Pasta Company' which used the unregistered trademark 'The Only Place'. After the dissolution of the partnership, the respondent continued to run a restaurant using the same name. The appellant filed for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from using the name.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima-facie case and approached the court without clean hands. The court also noted that the Family Settlement Deed, on which the appellant's case was based, was intentionally hidden from the court, leading to the appellant being disentitled from any relief.
Issues: Ownership of the unregistered trademark 'The Only Place', transmission of goodwill, and grant of temporary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant failed to establish a prima-facie case and approached the court with unclean hands, leading to the dismissal of the temporary injunction. The court also interpreted the provisions of the Trade marks Act, 1999 and the Islamic Law of inheritance to determine the rightful inheritor of the trademark's goodwill.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court clarified that the observations made in the order were preliminary and should not affect the final outcome of the suit.
Aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2015, passed by the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellant's application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the appellant has approached this Court.
2. According to the appellant, his father, Mr. Haroon Sulaiman Sait had coined the name "The Only Place". About fifty years ago, using the said name, his father had started a restaurant located at Brigade Road, Bengaluru. Since the restaurant, "The Only Place" used to serve mainly Western food, it acquired a goodwill in Bangalore. But as the appellant's father was getting old, and since Mota Arcade had been constructed, his father closed down the said restaurant.
3. The appellant and the respondent are related to each other. Since the respondent was unemployed, he and the appellant decided to constitute a partnership firm in the name and style of "M/s Aaaminah Steak & Pasta Company". Therefore, on 22.10.2003, they entered into a partnership at will. Further, according to the appellant his father permitted the appellant, and the respondent to put the board of "The Only Place" at the premises of "Aaaminah Steak & Pasta Company", located at No.13, Museum Road, Bangalore. Since the father agreed to permit the use of the name "The Only Place ", the partnership firm agreed to pay him certain amount. However, the unregistered Trademark "The Only Place" was not brought into the partnership as a property of the partnership firm. The partnership used the name "The Only Place" to run a restaurant of its own.
4. The partnership firm functioned from 22.10.2003 to 30.04.2013. On 30.04.2013, the respondent sent a notice to the appellant clearly indicating his resolve to dissolve the partnership firm. Since the partnership was at will, the firm stood dissolved with effect from 30.04.2013.
5. Furthermore, the premises, from where the restaurant "The Only Place" was being run by the partnership firm, the lease of the said premise came to an end on 31.03.2013. Therefore, the respondent entered into a new lease with the landlord. Moreover, the respondent continued to run the restaurant in the name and styled of "The Only Place" at the said premises even after the partnership firm was dissolved on 30.04.2013.
6. According to the respondent, even after the dissolution of the partnership firm, the appellant continued to interfere with the running of the restaurant, "The Only Place ". Therefore, the respondent instituted a civil suit for dissolution of the firm, for permanent injunction against the appellant, and for a decree for accounting of partnership business for the Accounting Year 2012 - 2013. Along with the plaint, the respondent also filed a temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC.
7. In turn, the appellant filed a counter-claim for declaration and permanent and injunction against the respondent.
8. During the course of the proceedings, while the respondent filed I.A. No. I, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, he also filed I.A. No. VI under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC, for amending his plaint. Meanwhile, the appellant filed I. A. No. III under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, for restraining the respondent from carrying on his business under the name and style of "M/s. Aaaminah Steak & Pasta Company". The defendant also filed I. A. No. IV under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, for restraining the respondent from carrying on the business in the name and style of "The Only Place". The appellant also filed I. A. No. V under Order XL, Rule 1 of CPC, r/w Section 44 of the Indian Partnership Act, for an appointment of Receiver. By a common order dated 15.07.2014, the learned Judge has decided all the interim applications. As mentioned above, the learned Judge has dismissed the appellant's Interim Application No. IV, under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, for restraining the respondent from running his restaurant in the name and style of "The Only Pla
