SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Bom) 262

2011 (3) ALL MR 540
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. KATHAWALLA
M/s.Bade Miya, Mumbai & Others
Versus
Mubin Ahmed Zahurislam
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.386 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.292 OF 2011
Decided on : 5-03-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Plaintiffs:Virendra Tulzapurkar, Sr.Counsel a/w H.J. Engineer i/by Gordhandas & Fozdar, Advocates. For the Respondent:Asok Sraogi a/w Mr.Mehul Rathod i/by Neeraj Gupta, Advocates.

Headnote:Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 69(2)-Trade Marks Act, 1999, Sections 29 and 42-Infringement of registered trade mark-An unregistered partnership firm-Can maintain a suit for permanent injunction and damages-Section 69(2) of Partnership Act not bars such a suit.-An unregistered partnership firm can maintain a suit for permanent injunction and damages and seek relief against infringement of a registered trade-mark and for passing off and Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not bar such a suit.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the present Notice of Motion the plaintiffs have prayed for an order and injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner using in relation to any business of manufacturing and selling or dealing in eatables the trading name "BADEMIYAN" or any other trading name consisting of the word "BADEMIYA" written in any script or the impugned trademark and the impugned logo mark as appearing in the photograph Exhibit-H to the plaint, or any other deceptively similar mark so as to infringe the plaintiffs registered trademark bearing number 641759 in Class-29 and the plaintiffs' registered trademark bearing number 1738175 in Class-42 and to further restrain the defendant from passing off their goods and/or services as those of the plaintiffs. By consent of the parties the Notice of Motion is at the ad-interim stage taken up for final hearing.

2. The plaintiff no.1 is a partnership firm of which the plaintiff nos.2 to 5 are partners. In the year 1947 Mohamed Yasin Nane Miyan, the father of the plaintiff nos.2 to 5 commenced the business of making and selling preparations of `Seekh Kababs' The Seekh Kababs were sold at a stall behind Hotel Taj Mahal at Coloba, Mumbai. The business is carried on under the name `Bademiya'' written within a band of parallel lines and a device of a structure with a logo consisting of the words `bsk' written in a circle with the two downward strokes of the letter `b' and `k' showing minarets. The photograph of the sign board of the plaintiffs' food stall is annexed as Exhibit-A at page 23 of the plaint.

3. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the trademark "BADEMIYA'S" bearing registration number 641759 in Class-29 registered as of 3rd October 1994. The trademark is registered in respect of Meat, Fish, Meat Extracts, Dried and Cooked Fruits and Vegetable Kababs. The registration is renewed for a period of ten years from 3rd October 2008. The trademark certificate and renewal certificates are annexed as Exhibits-G-1 and G-2 to the plaint at pages 43-A and 43-B.

4. The plaintiffs are also the registered proprietors of the trademark "BADEMIYA" bearing registration number 1738175 in Class-42 registered as of 29th September 2008. The trademark is registered in respect of providing Food and Drink, Temporary Accommodation, Medical, Hygienic and Beauty Care, Veterinary and Agricultural Services, Scientific and Industrial Research, Computer Programming, Services that cannot be classified in other classes. The trademark certificate is annexed as Exhibit-G-3 at page 43-D to the plaint.

5. According to the plaintiffs, over the years the plaintiffs' business has acquired tremendous goodwill and reputation amongst the members of Indian Public and Foreign Tourists. Several articles are published in newspapers, magazines and travel related journals. Some of the said articles are annexed as Exhibits-B-1 to B-10 at pages 24 to 37 of the plaint where the father of the plaintiff nos.2 to 5 and their business are prominently featured. The sales figures/turn over of the plaintiffs' business are annexed as Exhibits-D and D-1 at pages 39 and 39-A to the plaint which shows that the sales figures/turn over of the plaintiffs' business is increased from Rs.3,68,945/- (Rs.Three lakh sixty eight thousand nine hundred forty five only) in the year 1986 to Rs. 1,67,24,100/- (Rs.One crore sixty seven thousand twenty four thousand one hundred only) for the year 2009-2010.

6. According to the plaintiffs, in the first week of January 2011, the plaintiffs noticed an eating house situate at 7 Bungalows, Andheri, Mumbai bearing the name "Wah Bademiyan" (impugned trademark). The plaintiffs made inquiries and learnt that the defendant had recently started this eating house and adopted the impugned trademark. A photograph of the sign board and the menu card of the defendant's eating house are annexed as Exhibits-H and I at pages 44 to 46 of the plaint.

7. The plaintiffs through their advocate addressed a notice date





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top