Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
In the world of intellectual property (IP) disputes, certain names stand out as pivotal in shaping legal precedents. One such name is P. Sulochana Bai, often queried in legal research as p sulochana bai. She is best known as the respondent in the landmark Supreme Court case S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683. This judgment has become a cornerstone for passing off claims in trademark law, emphasizing the protection of commercial goodwill without registered trademarks. Whether you're a business owner safeguarding your brand or a law student studying IP principles, this case offers valuable insights.
This article delves into her identity, the case's context, its legal principles, and how it's cited in subsequent litigation. Note that this is general information based on available precedents and should not be considered specific legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your situation.
P. Sulochana Bai is identified exclusively as the defendant/respondent in S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683. No detailed biographical information, such as her profession, business, or location, appears in the referenced documents. Her prominence stems solely from this Supreme Court judgment, which is repeatedly cited in IP disputes. All references focus on the case's ratio decidendi rather than personal facts. Iftikhar Alam VS M. M. I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1028Moonshine Technology Private Limited VS Tictok Skill Games Private Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 233Abacus Montessori School 3, Thirumalai Nagar Annexe III, Chennai - Tamil Nadu VS Abacus International Montessori School, Chennai - Tamil Nadu - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 2147
Importantly, other mentions of individuals named Sulochana or Sulochana Bai in criminal or property cases—such as witnesses in murder trials or tenancy disputes—are unrelated and should not be conflated. For instance, a Sulochana Bai appears as a witness in a Section 302 IPC conviction appeal, but this pertains to a different context entirely. State Of Chhattisgarh vs Rajesh SatnamiMehattar Das @ Ganga Mahant S/o Shankar Das VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2017 Supreme(Chh) 523
The S. Syed Mohideen case exemplifies the classical trinity test for passing off, originally from Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc.1990 1 All E.R. 873, and adopted by Indian courts. To succeed in a passing off claim, a plaintiff must generally prove:
The Supreme Court in this case reinforced these elements: With regard to passing off, placing reliance on the decision in Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc., 1990 1 AII E.R. 873, as accepted and adopted by the Indian courts in various cases, including S. Syed Mohideen v. P Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683... Moonshine Technology Private Limited VS Tictok Skill Games Private Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 233
While the full factual matrix (e.g., specific marks or businesses involved) isn't detailed in the sources, the judgment underscores that priority in adoption and use of a mark trumps registration alone. As noted in related citations: Priority in adoption and use of a trade mark is superior to priority in registration. Aegon Life Insurance Company Limited VS Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1151
This precedent is widely invoked in IP battles. Senior counsel have relied on it alongside cases like Goenka Institute of Education and Research v. Anjani Kumar Goenka and Hulas Rai Baij Nath. Iftikhar Alam VS M. M. I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1028Abacus Montessori School 3, Thirumalai Nagar Annexe III, Chennai - Tamil Nadu VS Abacus International Montessori School, Chennai - Tamil Nadu - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 2147
For example:- In a dispute over the LUX mark, it was argued: He has relied upon S. Syed Mohideen vs. P. Sulochana Bai, 2016 (2) SCC 683. He has contended that, the Court while assessing whether a mark is well-known or not has to refer to Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court emphasized prior user rights over registration. Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited VS Micky Metals Limited - 2021 Supreme(Cal) 274- Another application highlighted Sections 12 and 30 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, in a RESQ infringement suit, citing the case for prior continuous usage. Rajdeep Energies Pvt. Ltd. , Represented by its Director VS Res Q Technologies Pvt Ltd. , Represented by its Director Magesh - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2183- In ITC Limited v. Golden Tobacco Company Limited (implied via GOLD FLAKE dispute), similar principles were echoed, noting disclaimers don't shield infringers. ITC Limited rep by its Constituted Attorney Mr. Nripendranath Thakur VS Golden Tobacco Limited - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 2426
Respondents in cases like Goenka Institute have also cited it: Respondent (i) Goenka Institute... (iii) S.Syed Mohideen vs. P.Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683. Abacus Montessori School 3, Thirumalai Nagar Annexe III, Chennai - Tamil Nadu VS Abacus International Montessori School, Chennai - Tamil Nadu - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 2147
These examples illustrate its versatility in protecting brands from misrepresentation, often grouped with Neon Laboratories Limited v. Medical Technologies Limited and Khoday India Ltd. v. Scotch Whisky Association.
To establish passing off:1. Goodwill/Reputation: Prove consumer association with your mark.2. Misrepresentation: Show defendant's use deceives the public.3. Damage: Demonstrate actual or likely harm.
Sri Shashi Nandan... has placed reliance upon... (vii) S. Syed Mohideen vs. P. Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683. Iftikhar Alam VS M. M. I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1028
A recurring theme: The rights of prior user are superior than that of registration and are unaffected by the registration rights under the Act. Aegon Life Insurance Company Limited VS Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1151 This protects honest businesses from latecomers exploiting registrations.
If facing a trademark dispute:- Gather evidence of prior use and goodwill.- Retrieve the full (2016) 2 SCC 683 judgment for facts.- Cross-reference Reckitt & Colman for equity principles.- Avoid unrelated Sulochana cases to prevent confusion.
Legal professionals can leverage this in arguments under the Trademarks Act, 1999, especially Sections 11(6), 29, and 30.
P. Sulochana Bai's case endures as a bulwark for passing off claims, safeguarding commercial reputations through the trinity test. Its frequent citations—from LUX to GOLD FLAKE disputes—affirm its relevance in modern IP litigation. Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited VS Micky Metals Limited - 2021 Supreme(Cal) 274ITC Limited rep by its Constituted Attorney Mr. Nripendranath Thakur VS Golden Tobacco Limited - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 2426
Key Takeaways:- Prior use often prevails over registration.- Prove the trinity: goodwill, misrepresentation, damage.- Cite strategically in suits for injunctions.
Stay informed on evolving IP precedents to protect your brand. For tailored advice, reach out to an IP specialist.
#PassingOff, #TrademarkLaw, #IPIndia
He set up the Will executed by Sulochana Bai as root of title. ... Bai, mother of the parties. ... When once it has been found that the settlement deed would prevail over the Will, executed by Sulochana Bai, the claim of the revision petitioner cannot at all be sustained. ... The first respondent took a stand that the registered Will alleged to have been executed by Sulochana Bai was cancelled by her by revocation deed dt.7.12.1986 and it was only thereafter she execu....
Short Note : ... The prosecution case was that the deceased Sulochana Bai was widow and she was living alone. ... causing grievous hurt on the forehead and in consequence of which Sulochana Bai died little latter on the same day. ... Dehuti Bai, the appellant in the connected appeal and mother of respondent Thakur Ram, had a suspicion that her husband Ganesh Prasad had illicit connection with Sulochana Bai the deceased and there used to be quarrel on this account. .......
Hearing commotion, villagers Jeevan Lal and Sulochana Bai came to the spot and Lal (PW-2) have not supported the case of the prosecutrix of Lal (PW-2), who have not supported the case of the prosecutrix, witnessed them, on which, the incident was informed by the prosecutrix to Sulochana
The aforesaid incident was witnessed by PW-1 Padum Sarthi, PW-3 Ramlal Bharti, PW-5 Sulochana Bai, PW-6 Padma Bai and PW-7 Bhaiyyalal Pal. ... The incident was witnessed by PW-1 Padum Sarthi, PW-5 Sulochana Bai, and PW-6 Padma Bai who are son, wife and daughter of the deceased respectively. ... PW-1 Padum Sarthi, PW-5 Sulochana Bai & PW-6 Padma Bai are close relatives of the deceased and out of previous animosity they have falsely i....
Statements of Appi Bai, Sulochana, Ambudi Bai, Satal Bai, Veer Singh and Sarjudi Bai were recorded with regard to missing person report. On completion of enquiry, FIR was registered against unknown persons at Crime No.65 of 2017 for offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC. ... During investigation, statements of witnesses Appi Bai, Sulochana, Sarjudi Bai, Ambudi Bai, Veer Singh and Ajaba Bai were recorded unde....
A.Sulochana Reddy Maya Appliances and Centred Equipments, etc. v. A.Sulochana Reddy Maya Appliances and Centred Equipments, etc. v. ... A.Sulochana Reddy Maya Appliances and Centred Equipments, etc. v. A.Sulochana Reddy Maya Appliances and Centred Equipments, etc. v. ... P.S.Rathina Bai D.V.Ramana alias Venkataramana Bhat v. P.S.Rathina Bai D.V.Ramana alias Venkataramana Bhat v. ... P.S.Rathina Bai D.V.Ramana alias Venkataramana Bhat v. P.S.Rathina Bai#HL_EN....
Lori Bai (PW-8) is the neighbour of deceased and she was known to the deceased Sulochana, at the instant of prosecution, she had clearly deposed that deceased Sulochana was suffering from stomach ache for which she was treated at various hospitals. ... Not only this, the prosecution has examined neighbour of deceased Sulochana namely Lori Bai (PW-8), Kavilas (PW-10) and Krishnadhar (PW-11). These three independent witnesses did not state anything regarding demand of dowry by the appellants or they treat....
SULOCHANA BAI W/O LATE SRI S.CHANDRA RAO REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SMT.SULOCHANA ... BAI D/O LATE SRI S.CHANDRA RAO
Statement of witnesses prosecutrix, Samaru, Samarin Bai, Kumari Sulochana were 01 Rameshri Bai Yadav and DW-02 Budhram were examined by 14) So far as evidence of DW-01 Rameshri Bai ... DW-01 Rameshri Bai Yadav has stated that the accused has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix and that 2 grand mother and her sister Kumari Sulochana
BY ADV SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT/APPELLANT & RESPONDENT 2 TO 4: TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 15TH POUSHA, 1945 RFA NO. 126 OF 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 659/1992 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31/10/2002 APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF IN OS: T.SULOCHANA
17. I have heard the detailed submissions of Mr.Rajesh for M/s. De Penning and De Penning for the petitioner, Mr.S.Kolandasamy for R1 and Mr.Janarthanam, Senior Panel Counsel for R2 and have also perused carefully the documents and case law. (ii) Anjani Kumar Goenka & another vs. Goenka Institute of Education & Research, ILR (2009) III Delhi 758 (iii) S.Syed Mohideen vs. P.Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683 Respondent (i) Goenka Institute of Education and Research vs. Anjani Kumar Goenka and Ors., AIR 2009 Delhi 39
He has relied upon S. Syed Mohideen vs. P. Sulochana Bai, 2016 (2) SCC 683. He has contended that, the Court while assessing whether a mark is well-known or not has to refer to Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He has submitted that, since the plaintiffs are the prior users of the mark “LUX” the rights of the plaintiffs are superior to the registration and are unaffected by registrations obtained under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He has referred to Section 29(1)(2) and (3) of the Act of 1999 and submitted that, confusion and deception among the general public which....
2. S.Syed Mohideen v. P.Sulochana Bai [2015(7) SCALE 136] 4. N.R.Dongre and Ors. vs. Whirlpool Corporation and others [1996(16)PTC 583 (SC) 1. Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd., vs. India Stationery Products Co & Another [1989(9) PTC 61(Del) 3. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. & Another v. M.S.S.Food Products [2005 (30) PTC 233 (SC)]
S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683 “23. Priority in adoption and use of a trade mark is superior to priority in registration.” The above were the reasonings from the provisions arising from the plain reading of the Act which gives clear indication that the rights of prior user are superior than that of registration and are unaffected by the registration rights under the Act. Secondly, there are other additional reasonings as to why the passing of rights are considered to be superior than that of registration rights.
(12)(2016) 2 SCC 683 - S.Syed Mohideen vs. P.Sulochana Bai. (13)1997 (17) PTC 408 (DB) - Castrol Ltd. and Anr. vs. A.K.Mehta and anr.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
