Subair vs King Beedi Company
2021 Latest Caselaw 1836 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

     MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942

                       OP(C).No.1853 OF 2020

  I.A.NO.10/2020 IN OS. NO. 6/2020 DATED 30-11-2020 OF DISTRICT
                         COURT,THRISSUR

                            ------------


PETITIONER:

              SUBAIR
              AGED 48 YEARS
              S/O.AYAMUTTY, PROPRIETOR, NUKIN BEEDI COMPANY,
              OLD CALICUT ROAD, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, OLAVAKODE,
              PALAKKAD-678002.

              BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI

RESPONDENT:

              KING BEEDI COMPANY
              95(A), NETHAJI ROAD, MELEPALAYAM, THIRUNALVELI,
              TAMILNADU, REP. BY THE JOINT MANAGING PARTNER
              A.A.ABDUL RAZAK, 35 YEARS, S/O. A.B.ABDUL KHADAR,
              ADAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTTICHOOR POST,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT-680641.

              R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                    SATHISH NINAN, J.
          ==================
               O. P. (C) No.1853 of 2020
          ==================
         Dated this the 18th day of January, 2021

                              JUDGMENT

Interrogatory question no.3 was refused by the

District Court, challenging which this original petition is filed.

2. The suit is in relation to infringment of

trade mark. The reliefs claimed in the suit reads

thus:-

"(a) Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, its agents servants and representatives from wrongfully selling the products or offering the sale or otherwise dealing in any goods/products similar to the goods/products of the plaintiff under the trade mark/name NUKIN & RAJAV (in English and Malayalam) of RAJAV BEEDI COMPANY and NUKIN BEEDI COMPANY or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark KING BEEDI, in its package, coloring get up and writings as well as phonetically similar to the mark KING BEEDI."

O. P. (C) No.1853 of 2020

3. The question no.3 sought for in the

interrogatory is about some family relation of the

defendant and has no connection with the reliefs

sought. The trial court was right in refusing the

question.

Original petition fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.1853 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.6/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTO COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN O.S.6/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTO COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION I.A.2/2020 IN O.S.6/2020 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT P4 PHOTO COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION I.A. 10/2020 IN O.S.6/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT P5 PHOTO COPY OF OBJECTION FILED IN I.A.10/2020 IN O.S.6/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT P6 PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. 10/2020 IN O.S.NO.6/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR DATED 30.11.2020.

-------------