In a passing off action, the plaintiff need not wait for damages to result and can seek injunction by proving deceptive similarity of the name, and proof of damages is optional.

1. The challenge by means of this Appeal by the defendant filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is to the impugned judgment of the dated 09.07.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, in O.S. No. 33 of 2012 decreeing the suit granting injunction restraining him from passing off action by way of running the coaching centre in the name and style of "Puthiya Polivudan Puthiya Idathil Vivekananda Coaching Centre".

2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the Proprietor of Vivekananda Coaching Centre. It is stated that his father one A.Sellamuthu, who was employed in Sainik School, Amarvathi Nagar, as a Hostel Superintendent, entered into an agreement for sale on 25.7.1996 with one G.B. Gopinath and he was put in possession of the property on the same date. As per wish of his father, during December, 1997, the plaintiff started the educational institution in the suit property in the name and style of "Vivekananda Coaching Centre" housing the same at Door No. 15/81, near Forest Bungalow, Amaravathy Nagar, Udumalpet. Subsequently, a sale deed was executed on 22.7.1998 in favour of the plaintiff and his younger brother pursuant to the agreement dated 25.7.1996. The plaintiff also had put up a RCC Building and was running the Coaching Centre successfully since 1997.

3. It is also averred by the plaintiff that the defendant was working as a Mathematics Teacher in the plaintiff's Coaching Centre between the period from 1999 and 2010 with an initial pay of Rs.5000/- per month which was gradually increased to Rs.10,000/-. According to the plaintiff, approximately, about 70 students were trained each year and the students of the plaintiff's Coaching Centre were successful in getting admission in the Sainik School. Likewise, during December 2011, the plaintiff's Coaching Centre was training students who wanted to join the Sainik Schools in India. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant while was in employment with the plaintiff, without his knowledge, indulged in malpractices for which the defendant was warned by the plaintiff several times. While so, the plaintiff received a notice dated 12.6.2010 from one Liakath Ali stating that the defendant had demanded a lump sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as bribe for admission of his son Shah Navas Ali, one of the students. As the plaintiff was disturbed by the attempt of the defendant, he paid the salary and dismissed the defendant from his services. Enraged by the act of dismissal, out of vengeance and jealousy, the defendant started a Coaching Centre during April 2011 with a name of Institution as “Puthiya Polivudan Puthiya Idathil Vivekananda Coaching Centre" at Sayapattarai Main Road of Amaravathi Nagar Post, Udumalpet Taluk. According to the plaintiff, by keeping the same name for the new institution, the defendant was deliberately causing confusion in the minds of the innocent students and the parents of their wards and he expressed his mala fide intention. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant, being the past employee of the plaintiff's institution, has no right to use the same brand name as that of the plaintiff because the usage of the same would cause irreparable loss and damages to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's father issued a notice to the defendant on 19.4.2011 for which the defendant also sent a reply to the plaintiff on 19.5.2011.

4. It is seen from the averments made in the plaint that the plaintiff had applied for registration of trade mark on 5th May, 2011 in class 41 in respect of providing training education and coaching in the name by the plaintiff as a Proprietor. The defendant who has got no locus standi to use the brand name of the plaintiff's Coaching Centre which is identical or desceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade name and there is also phonetical visual similarity between the two names. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant misused the trade name of the plaintiff and the de