TEJU SINGH Vs. SHANTA DEVI
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This is an appeal by unsuccessful sole defendant in an action brought for injunction restraining him from using or exhibiting himself or through his servants or agents the trade name of the business used by the respondent or any device resembling it and also to recover a sum of Rs. 400.00 by way of damages and some other incidental reliefs. The respondent-plaintiff was successful only to the extent of securing an injunction at the hands of the lower court. But his relief for damages failed. There are, however, no cross-objections brought by the respondent.
(2.) The plaintiff as well as the defendant are electric dry cleaners of clothes. The former had been trading under the name and style of " One day Electric Dry cleaners" on the station Road, Kachiguda. The later started his trade a few yards away from the plaintiffs place of business on the same road under the name and style of "Only one day Electric Dry cleaners." Hence the present action.
(3.) The plaintiff alleges that she had been doing her business in the same premises ever since 1965 exclusively and openly using the name " One day Electric Dry Cleaners". By virtue of long user and reliable service, her business had gathered wide publicity and become popular among the public. Recently she came to know that the defendant also had been using practically the same name except refixing it by the word "Only". It is nothing but a colourable adoption of the plaintiffs trade name which is likely to cause confusion in the minds of the customers. The name has been adapted only to harass the cause loss to the plaintiff. The customers mistakenly believing it to be the plaintiffs place of business, have been partonising the defendants business. The plaintiff will consequently suffer loss in her trade and her goodwill also will be adversely affected. The sign boards and the stationery used by the defendant for his business are similar to the design, decoration, sign and symbol etc., used by the plaintiff also in her trade. Such adaptation is patently calculated to cause confusion and deception in the trade. It is, therefore, just and necessary that the defendant be restrained by perpetual injunction from infringing the plaintiffs trade name of business.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.