P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MERCY BIGI – Appellant
Versus
SUNILKUMAR – Respondent
The plaintiff in an action for passing off is the appellant in this appeal.
2. The plaintiff is engaged in home stay business in the name and style 'Palmy Residency' at Alappuzha from 2006 onwards. According to her, on account of the use of the name 'Palmy Residency' for the home stay run by her at Alappuzha from year 2006 onwards, she acquired a goodwill and reputation in the home stay business in the name 'Palmy Residency'. It is also her case that she had applied for registration of the trade mark "Palmy" during 2010. The grievance highlighted by the plaintiff in the suit is that she had sold the building in which she was running the home stay in the name 'Palmy Residency' to the defendant on 2.4.2010 and in the very same building, the defendant started a home stay in the name 'Palmy Regency'. According to the plaintiff, the attempt of the defendant is with a view to pass off his services as that of the plaintiff and therefore, she is entitled to a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from using the name "Palmy" or any other name deceptively similar to the name "Palmy" for his home stay.
3. The defendant contested the suit. The fact that the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.