The judgment established the importance of considering the distinctiveness and cultural significance of trademarks in cases of infringement and passing off.

JUDGMENT :

M. Duraiswamy, J.—

1. Challenging the fair and final orders passed in I.A.Nos.118 and 119 of 2016 in O.S.No.97 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Court, Tirupur, the defendant has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2016 for the following reliefs:-

(i) for permanent injunction retraining the defendant from in any manner infringing the appellant's registered trademark "Valluvar" by using the trademark of Thiru Valluvar"/"Valluvar" or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark "Thiru Valluvar" in any other manner whatsoever in relation to the rice or rice related products;

(ii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant in any manner passing off and/or enabling others to pass off the defendant's rice/rice products as and for the plaintiff's products by using, selling or offering to sell, distributing, displaying, printing, advertising their products bearing the trademark "Thiru Valluvar" or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark "Valluvar" per se or with any prefix or suffix or in any other manner whatsoever;

(iii) to direct the defendant to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction of all products, labels, dyes, blocks, moulds screen prints, packing materials and other materials bearing the trademark "Thiru Valluvar" identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff's trademark "Valluvar" and

(iv) to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for acts of infringement of plaintiff's trademark.

3. The brief case of the respondent/plaintiff is as follows:

(i) According to the plaintiff, he is the Proprietor of the Rice Mill running under the name and style of "Thirumurugan Modern Rice Mill" and also claims that he has been involved in manufacturing and marketing variety of rice, paddy etc., for more than 14 years. The plaintiff had registered his product in the trademark name as "Valluvar" in the year 2003 in respect of rice in class 30. The plaintiff has filed the Certificate of Registration and legal proceedings order issued by the Trademarks Registry, Chennai. Therefore, the plaintiff claims his right under section 31 of Trade Mark Act, 1999. The plaintiff further stated that he has been using the trademark "Valluvar" along with the image of Poet "Thiru Valluvar" in all invoices, advertisements and pamphlets as per his trademark. The plaintiff gained enormous goodwill and reputation and that his sale is growing year by year.

(ii) The plaintiff contended that the defendant was using a similar brand name "Thiru Valluvar" for the same product in the market, which is identical trademark as used by the plaintiff for the same category of product, i.e. rice. The defendant under the same name "Thiru Valluvar" and with the same design of gunny bag used by the plaintiff was selling the product in the market. Further, the plaintiff contended that the defendants had imitated the registered trademark of the plaintiff with the mala fide intention to cut the profits of the plaintiff and that the trademark applied for by the defendant is different and not actually used by them and has further stated that the registration of trademark applied by the defendant is still pending for consideration.

(iii) The plaintiff contended that since the defendant is using the identical and deceptive trademark similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, prima facie he has established his case and prayed for grant of interim injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's trademark and for passing off and/or enabling others to pass off the defendant's rice/rice products by using the trade mark "Thiru Valluvar" or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark "Valluvar" per se or with any prefix or suffix or in any manner whatsoever till the disposal of the suit.

4. The brief case of the defendants is as follows:-

(i) According to the defendant, the bran