Manmohan Singh, J.—

1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the present application bearing I.A. No. 5379/2011 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well as for infringement of trade mark, passing off and for infringement of Copyright Act, 1963 seeking relief of injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark MANJU in any manner which is amounting to infringement of trade mark, passing off and rendition of accounts.

2. Facts as per Plaint

a) The plaintiff submits that she is the sole proprietor of the firm in the name and style of M/s Manju Monga Cookery Classes situated at A-97, Gujaranwala Town, Part-I, Delhi- 110009, engaged in educating and training of fine variety of cuisines. She is using the said trade mark/trade label MANJU MONGA?S COOKING CLASSES (herein after referred to as the said trademark).

b) The said trade mark has been adopted by her in the year 1999 and since then it is being used. The plaintiff also submits that the word marks MANJU and COOKERY CLASSES form an integral/essential and prominent part of the trade mark. The word MANJU is recognized and indentified instantly and a lot of reputation and goodwill has been earned by her. Her trademark application No. 862727 is filed with the trade mark registry for registration.

c) She has appeared on various TV shows and „Live Cookery Shows? and her recipes are also published in „Greh Laxmi? magazine. The defendant, a past student of her is also engaged in the same trade and business of that of the plaintiff, under the name and style of „Manju?s Cookery Classes (referred to as the impugned trademark). The defendant has learned all the secrets and the fine art of cooking of the plaintiff.

d) The plaintiff is serving the restaurants, eating houses and other corporate places. She has been solicited by few corporate houses for lending her name or for partnering ventures.

3. Grievance against the defendant by the plaintiff is that the defendant is misusing the trademark amounting to unethical trade practice and competition who is using the trade mark without any prior permission/leave and license of the plaintiff and infringing the rights of the plaintiff knowingly and deliberately. Scanned copy/specimen are reproduced herein below:

Trademark of the Plaintiff

Impugned Trademark of the Defendant

Trademark of the Plaintiff Impugned Trademark of the Defendant

4. Defendant’s case

It is alleged that the defendant is now adding suffix, MITTAL to her name in order to avoid any confusion and deception. It was done since 10th March, 2011 after the receipt of legal notice from the plaintiff. The defendant is also changed the colour scheme and get up and lay out which was similar to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has deliberately suppressed the fact. Defendant?s name reads as „MANJU MITTAL?S COOKERY CLASSES?. The defendant had given up the name i.e. „MANJU?S COOKERY CLASSES? prior to the filing of this suit by the plaintiff and the same is protected under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act 1999. Both the names of the parties are different and there is no scope for any confusion amongst the general public. The expression „COOKERY CLASSES? is a generic term. There are many persons who are using the same suffix of „COOKERY CLASSES? and has referred many examples like Tarla Dalal?s Cookery Classes, Nita Mehta?s Cookery Classes etc. The defendant?s name is Manju Mittal, therefore, she is entitled to use her name which is protected under Section 35 of the Act.

5. The defendant submits that even to prior to the establishment of plaintiff?s business, there are persons with similar name Manju Malhi and she also has a website named www.manjumalhi.com. Another person, Manju Dhanda also in the same business has her email id manju@jaldicook.com. Even otherwise two businesses of the parties are geographically in different locations, thus, no question arises of general public getting perplexed. Further the in the advertisement published by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document