JUDGMENT

The suit has been filed for the alleged infringement of the registered trademark “CHAND” (label mark) and for passing off. The suit has also been filed for the alleged infringement of copyright and for other consequential reliefs.

2. The plaintiff is in the business of manufacturing and marketing textile goods under various trademarks. They claim that they were established in the year 1910 and ever since their establishment, they are carrying on the business in the same filed.

3. According to the plaintiff, they enjoy a huge reputation and goodwill in respect of the products manufactured by them under various trademarks. One such trademark is “CHAND”, which is the subject matter of the dispute in this suit. According to the plaintiff, the registered trademark “CHAND” has been designed artistically consisting of special features, which is unique. After coming to know that the defendant has blatantly copied the plaintiff's trademark “CHAND” and has also copied the artistic design of the plaintiff's label for the very same business, as that of the plaintiff, namely, for manufacturing of Lungis, the plaintiff has filed this suit seeking for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.

4. However, according to the defendant, as seen from the written statement, they have not committed any infringement of the plaintiff's trademark and copyright as claimed in the plaint. According to the defendant, certain partners of the plaintiff's firm retired and formed another partnership under the name and style of M/s.Amin & Company, which carried on the business until 1980. According to the defendant, M/s.Amin & Company was permitted by the plaintiff's firm to use the trademark “CHAND” with letter 'A' added to it. According to them, the trademark “CHAND” was bifurcated with the consent of the plaintiff in the year 1952 by permitting M/s.Amin & Company to use the trademark “CHAND-A”. According to the defendant, eversince the bifurcation, the plaintiff has been using the mark “CHAND-Z” in order to be distinctive when compared with the trademark used by M/s.Amin & Company, which is “CHAND-A”. According to the defendant, they are engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Lungis under the trademark “CHAND-A”, taking over from their predecessor-in-title, namely, M/s.Amin & Company, who was earlier using the trademark “CHAND-

A” since 1952.

5. Originally, the partnership firm M/s.KAS Zainulabdin &

Company/plaintiff herein was started in the year 1910 by three brothers, namely, (a) Kulam M.A.K.Zainulabdin; (b) Kulam M.A.K.Ahmed Lebbai; and (c) Kulam M.A.K.Syed Mohamed Bukhari. According to the defendant, the said three brothers had conceived the label as well as the caption in a unique and stylish manner. According to the defendant, in the plaintiff's firm, namely, M/s.KAS Zainulabdin & Company, the letters KAS denote the family name “Kulam”; letter 'A' denotes the second brother 'Kulam Ahamed Lebbai', letter 'S' denotes the third brother 'Kulam Syed Mohamed Bukhari'; and 'Zainulabdin' denotes the eldest brother 'Kulam Zainulabdin'. Kulam Syed Mohamed Bukhari is the father of K.Mohideen Abdul Kader, partner of the defendant's firm. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has no exclusive right over the letters 'KAS', as also coined caption 'special quality', printed in a unique and stylish manner, and the mark “CHAND”, co-authored by all three brothers.

6. According to the defendant, in their adoption of the trading style

“KAS BUKHARI & Company”, K denotes their family name 'Kulam', 'A' denotes Abdur Rahman and Aboobacker, who are the sons of partner WAB.HajaraBeevi; and 'S' denotes Syed Mohamed Bukhari and Sadakathullah, who are the sons of partner K.Mohideen Abdul Kadar, and 'Bukhari' represents one of the founder partners of KAS Zainulabdin & Company. Therefore, according to the defendant, they have every right to use the letters 'KAS' and also as a descendant of Syed Mohamed Bukhari, the co-founder of the parent company KAS Zainulabdin