- (1.) AN aunt by marriage and her nephew have locked horns over the valuable rights relating to inexpensive tiffin cakes sold primarily at roadside tea stalls in this part of the country. The principal person in control of the plaintiff is the wife of the father's brother of the first defendant who is the human agency behind the second defendant. Both sets of parties claim to be exclusively entitled to the mark "bapuji" and have the mark as part of their business names.
(2.) THE plaintiff claims that the bakery business now continued by it was established by one Sital Chandra Laha in January, 1969 with his daughter aparna Jana later assisting him in such business. The plaintiff suggests that aparna was the previous owner of the mark "bapuji" and had carried on business using such brand name since 1973, though the additional representation in Aparna's application for registration shows the label to be in use since April 10, 1975. The registration of the mark is in class 30 and stands in the name of the plaintiff as the plaintiff was incorporated in 1998 with Aparna, her husband and their son being the first subscribers to its memorandum of association. According to the plaintiff, Aparna's husband's nephew, the first defendant, lived with his uncle and aunt and in such circumstances came to be introduced to Aparna's business. The plaintiff has also obtained registration of the copyright relating to the artistic work in its label in 1997. The sales figures indicated by the plaintiff show a jump from thousands to lakhs to crores between 1973 and 1993 but reveal a decline from about Rs. 3. 26 crore in 2001-02 to about Rs. 2. 71 crore in 2004-05. The plaintiff claims to have advertised its products from 1973 but figures are available for the year 1995-96 and thereafter from 1999-2000 onwards. The plaintiff shows to have expended in excess of Rs. 1 lakh in the two years preceding the institution of the suit.
(3.) THE plaintiff and the second defendant, whether in their avatars as bodies corporate or through the principal persons in control prior to the companies being incorporated, have crossed swords at various forums and it is unlikely that matters would rest hereafter. The plaintiff urges that on a reading of the orders made in its favour, the defendants can assert no right in respect of the mark and a blanket injunction has to follow. The defendants counter that the plaintiff's registration is on thin ice and the defendants' challenge thereto has been warded off temporarily and is subject to resumption at the appropriate stage. The defendants urge that since the registration is not free from doubt, the other matters that the defendants bring become relevant.;