The court's decision emphasized the importance of considering consumer perception, reputation of the product in different areas, and statutory control of liquor sales in passing off actions.

G. Rajasuria, J.

The long and the short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this application would run thus:

(i) The applicant, as plaintiff, has filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) to grant a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents, executors, assigns or, any one claiming through or under them from in any manner manufacturing any/or marking IMFS, In particular Brandy, under the trade mark “Brihan’s Gold Napoleon’ or under any other trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark Imperial’s ‘Gold Napoleon’ so as to pass off the defendants’ goods as and for that of the plaintiffs or in any other manner whatsoever;

(b) to direct the defendants to surrender to plaintiff for destruction of all bottles, labels, dyes, blocks, moulds, screen prints, packing materials and other materials bearing the trademark “Brihan’s Gold Napoleon’ or any other trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark Imperial’s ‘Gold Napoleon’;

(c) to direct the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1 crore as special damages for the loss inflicted upon the plaintiff by the adoption of identical trademark ‘Gold Napoleon’ in respect of Brandy.”

(ii) The same applicant filed this application with the following prayer.

“to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men, servants, agents, executors, assigns, or any one claiming through or under them’ from in any manner manufacturing and/or marketing IMPS, in particular Brandy, under the trade mark ‘Brihan’s Gold Napoleon’ or under any other trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the Applicant’s trade mark Imperial’s ‘Gold Napoleon’ so as to pass off the respondents’ goods as and for that of the applicant’s or in any other manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit.”

(iii) The respondents/defendants filed the counter, refuting and challenging, Impugning and disputing the genuineness of the averments/allegations in the affidavit accompanying the application as well as in the plaint.

2. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to before under according to their litigative status and raking in the suit.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Tour d’Horizon of the learned counsel for the plaintiff would succinctly and precisely, pithily and briefly be set out thus:

(a) The plaintiff is having his trade mark ‘Gold Napoleon’ in selling brandy and he is having roaring business in selling such item in Kerala, Karnataka, Goa, Pondicherry and Himachal Pradesh.

.(b) In Tamil Nadu, the plaintiff tried to obtain licence and set up a distillery and sell the product, but he could not succeed, nonetheless he is trying.

.(c) The defendants, without having any right to use the same trade mark “Gold Napoleon”, has started recently selling brandy under the said name and that is being sold in TASMAC shops of Tamil Nadu.

.(d) Unless the defendants are injuncted, the reputation of the plaintiff would go down and the act of the defendants is nothing but deceptively and dishonestly passing off the good product of the plaintiff as that of the defendants.

.(e) Puducherry is very nearbyChennai and the plaintiffs product is being sold in Puducherry and has gained reputation. The people do travel from Pondicherry to Chennai and vice versa often and thereby, the product of the plaintiff gained reputation even in Chennai and in such a case even area wise restriction also would be against the interest of the plaintiff.

.(f) All along the defendants have been selling brandy under the trade mark “Napoleon Brandy”, whereas, after sensing and realising that, among the liquor consuming public there is a huge demand for ‘Gold Napoleon’, the defendants started deceptively emulating and simulating the product of the plaintiff and as such, they have to be injuncted. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for th