The central legal point established in the judgment is that the dissimilarity of goods, the plaintiff's inaction amounting to acquiescence, and the lack of evidence to establish the plaintiff's reputation for purposes of Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act led to the dismissal of the suit and the plaintiff's obligation to pay costs to the defendant.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1of CPC r/w Order IV Rule 1 of High Court O.S. Rules and Section 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 55 & 62 of the Copyright Act, (a) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its agents, servants or any one claiming through it from in any manner infringing the plaintiff-s Trade Marks as described in the Schedule hereunder by using the offending trademark “AROKYA” written in Tamil or any other trademark or marks which are in any way identical or deceptively similar or colourable imitation of the plaintiff-s trademarks described in the Schedule to the plaint.

(b) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its agents, servants or any one claiming through it from in any manner passing off its products as that of the plaintiff by using the offending trademark label AROKIYA written in Tamil and English or by using any other trademark or trademark label which is similar, deceptively similar or identical to that of the plaintiff-s trademark -AROKYA- either by manufacturing or selling or offering for sale or in any manner advertising the same.

(c) Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its servants or agents or anyone claiming through it from in any manner infrining the plaintiff-s copyright in the artistic work over the trademark label -AROKYA- by using the offending label or any other label or labels which are in any way a reproduction of the plaintiff-s copyright label AROKYA.

(d) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its agents, servants or any one claiming through it from in any manner infringing the plaintiff-s Trade Marks as described in the Schedule hereunder by using the offending trademark “AROKYA” or any other tradename or marks which are in any way identical or deceptively similar or colourable imitation of the plaintiff-s trademarks as described in the schedule to the plaint.

(e) Directing the defendant to surrender to the plaintiff the entire products with the offending labels, stocks with offending labels together with the blocks and dies, name boards, sign boards etc for destruction.

(f) Directing the defendant to render true and faithful accounts of the products earned by them through the sale of the offending products bearing the offending trademark label and directing payment of such profits to the plaintiff and (g) to pay the costs of the suit.)

The plaintiff filed the suit in respect of alleged trade mark infringement and passing off, and claimed several reliefs in respect thereto.

2. The plaintiff stated that it is engaged in the manufacture of dairy products. In relation thereto, it stated that the trademark “AROKYA” was adopted more than two decades ago and that an application for registration was filed in June 1995 after using the said mark for a considerable period of time. Pursuant thereto, it is stated that registrations were granted in Class 29 and Class 32 between 14.06.1995 and 13.02.2008. The plaintiff further asserted that the trademark “AROKYA” has acquired a secondary meaning through long, open, honest and continuous use. The plaintiff referred to the substantial growth in its annual turnover from the sale of products marketed under the trademark “AROKYA”. In specific, it stated that the annual turnover increased from Rs.45.33 lakhs in the financial year 1998 - 1999 to Rs.1,452.38 lakhs in the financial year 2013-2014. Similarly, the over all sales turnover and advertising expenditure was set out in paragraph 13 of the plaint to establish the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further stated that the trademark “AROKYA” has attained the status of a well known trademark within the meaning of Section 2(zg) read with Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act,1999 (the Trade Marks Act). The plaintiff also stated that it came to know that the defendant was using the mark “AROKIYA” in relation to its idly and dosa batter in July 2009. I