Radhakrishnan Puthen Veedu ... vs Pulimoottil Silks

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6908 Ker
Judgement Date : 14 June, 2022

Kerala High Court
Radhakrishnan Puthen Veedu ... vs Pulimoottil Silks on 14 June, 2022
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
     TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                        FAO NO. 14 OF 2022
  AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2/2021 IN OS 1/2021 OF III ADDITIONAL
                    DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

          RADHAKRISHNAN PUTHEN VEEDU NARAYANAN
          81/4099, PULIMOOTTIL TEXTILES, MG.ROAD, STATUE,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001.

          BY ADVS.
          D.KISHORE
          MEERA GOPINATH
          R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
          ARYA JOSEPH



RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

          PULIMOOTTIL SILKS
          PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 020,
          A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER ABRAHAM CHACKO,
          AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH CHACKO PULIMOOTTIL,
          RESIDING AT PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, 11A,
          SKYLINE WILLOW HEIGHTS, GODSAIKUNNU,
          KURIYACHIRA P.O., THRISSUR - 680 006.

          BY ADVS
                BENOY K.KADAVAN
                LAYA GEORGE



     THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
  FAO NO. 14 OF 2022

                                     2



                              JUDGMENT

Heard both sides.

2. The appeal is against the order of injunction granted by the trial court restraining the defendant from proceeding with his business in the name and style of 'PULIMOOTTIL TEXTILES'. The respondent/petitioner/plaintiff claims right both under infringement and passing off for their business in the name of 'PULIMOOTTIL SILKS'.

3. It was contended by the appellant/ defendant that what the plaintiff had obtained by way of registration is pertaining to a device mark with a pink colour label. Inter alia, it is contended that there cannot be any acquisition of right by way of registration by utilizing a geographical name "PULIMOOTTIL". It is an admitted fact that the business of the defendant is by using the name 'PULIMOOTTIL TEXTILES' and FAO NO. 14 OF 2022 3 not by 'PULIMOOTTIL SILKS'. Though passing off is also claimed in reference to the exception under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, I am of the view that it requires detailed consideration by the trial court. As such, the abovesaid question is left open for consideration by the trial court, i.e. with respect to whether the expression "PULIMOOTTIL" would come under the purview of geographical name with the exception carved out of Section 9 of the Act. Prima facie it appears that the word "PULIMOOTTIL" stands for a geographical name. The business of the defendant is in the name and style of 'PULIMOOTTIL TEXTILES' and not in the name of 'PULIMOOTTIL SILKS', and as such the injunction granted by the trial court cannot be sustained and the same will stand set aside and vacated with the liberty of the parties to agitate their respective entitlement before the trial court. FAO NO. 14 OF 2022 4 There will be a direction to the trial court to dispose of the matter untrammeled by any of the observations contained in the impugned order as well as this judgment. All issues are left open for consideration by the trial court. The parties shall appear before the trial court on the next posting date to proceed further in the matter. The trial court shall dispose of the matter within a time schedule of eight months from the next posting date.

The appeal is allowed in part accordingly. No cost.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV