Radhakrishnan Puthen Veedu ... vs Pulimoottil Silks
2022 Latest Caselaw 6908 Ker

             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

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

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