Grassroots of Indian judicial system lies in the trial court proceedings. However, we rarely get access to the various groundbreaking orders or judgements in lieu of the trend of ‘Reported Judgements’ of higher benches. This article intends to analyse a judgement by the trail court particularly in the dynamic field of Intellectual Property Law.

The state of Karnataka witnessed a tussle between two renowned brands ‘Nandhini Deluxe’ involved in Andra style restaurant services along with logo and the Trademark ‘Nandini’ owned by Karnataka Milk Federation involved in selling milk and milk products not so long ago. Wherein KMF (Karnataka Milk federation) succeeded in getting favourable orders in High Court of Karnataka while getting the brand ‘Nandhini Deluxe’ rectified for being deceptively similar to its well established Trademark. However, Nandhini Deluxe entered to the steps of Supreme Court to protect its Trademark. The judgement can be viewed here

Having proved the validity of its Trademark ‘Nandhini Deluxe’ in the Supreme Court of India, it continues to protect against third party violates. Recently, in the City Civil Court of Bengaluru ( CCH-10) it succeeded in getting a permanent injunction against a hotel for using deceptively similar trademark ‘Nandini Veg’. The defendant took cover under Section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act stating that the plaintiff has no authorisation to file the suit. There is no resolution of partnership firm filed by the Plaintiff to represent the suit by the Plaintiff. The counsel for the Defendant has also argued that the Plaintiff has not produced any document to show that it is a partnership firm. There is a bar contending Sec.69(2) of Partnership Act. Unregistered firm cannot sue. Hence prayed this court to dismiss the suit at the threshold.

Counsel Akshatha M Patel while representing ‘Nandhini Deluxe’ on behalf on Holla associates has urged otherwise while relied on the ruling in MANU/SC/0004/1960 – Purushotham Umed Bai case and contending that Trademark registration certificate stands in the name of N. Anand trading as NANDHINI. The very suit is filed by N. Anand, hence the suit is maintainable and prayed to allow the suit. The court observed that

“ If the relief of permanent injunction or damages are being claimed on the basis of a registered trademark and its infringement, the suit is to be treated as one based on a statutory right under the Trade Marks Act and is not barred by Section 69(2). Therefore, in both these situations, the unregistered partnership in the present case cannot be said to be enforcing the right ‘arising from a contract’

Having observed the same the suit was decreed in part in favour of ‘Nandhini Deluxe’ . The judgement can be viewed here

en_GBEnglish (UK)