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 defendant is running a home stay in the building purchased from the plaintiff is not disputed. According to the defendant, the name of his home stay is 'Lotus Palmy Regency' and not 'Palmy Regency' as contended by the plaintiff. It was also contended by the defendant that the style of writing and the colour used for writing the name of his home stay are different from the style of writing and the colour used by the plaintiff. It is further contended by the defendant that the logo of the trade name of the plaintiff is different from the logo of the trade name of the defendant. According to the defendant, a picture of a Palm tree is there in his logo which is absent in the logo of the plaintiff. Above all, it was contended by the defendant that the word "Palmy" is a dictionary word and the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive right to use the same.

4. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW3 and Exts.A1 to A15 on the side of the plaintiff and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.B1 to B4 on the side of the defendant.

5. The trial court found that the plaintiff has not established that she has acquired reputation and goodwill in the business in the name "Palmy Residency". The trial court also found that the word "Palmy" being a dictionary word, the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive right to use the same. In the light of the said findings, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the said decision of the trial court and hence this appeal.

6. Heard Sri.Vinod Madhavan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.B.Pramod, the learned counsel for the respondent.

7. Ext.A2 is the receipt evidencing payment of professional tax by the plaintiff in connection with the business carried on by her on 28.7.2006. Ext.A3 is the certificate issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Alappuzha on 29.9.2008. In Ext.A3, it is stated that the plaintiff has got registration in respect of M/s.Palmy Residency under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976. Ext.A4 is an international travel guide published in September, 2007. It is seen that Ext.A4 travel guide is published by a website called 'Lonely Planet.com', providing travel services from Australia. Ext.A4 contains the particulars of the home stay of the plaintiff 'Palmy Residency', such as its website, telephone number, tariff plan, facilities etc. Ext.A5 is another travel guide published by the very same organisation during September, 2009. Ext.A5 also contains the particulars of the home stay of the plaintiff. Ext.A6 is a travel guide containing the particulars of the various hotels, resorts etc. around the world in English as also in French. According to the plaintiff, Ext.A6 travel guide, namely 'Le guide du Routard' is a travel guide published from France. Ext.A6 also contains the partic